Sitting of 18 September 2003

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

    Small Businesses
    Mr. David Cameron: What steps she is taking to encourage small businesses to increase employment levels; and if she will make a statement. [130814]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): We have given UK small businesses the best VAT threshold in the EU, cut the corporation tax starting rate to zero and created a sound and stable economy that has generated more than 1.6 million additional jobs since 1997. More people are now in work in Britain than at any time in our history.
    Mr. Cameron: What would the Minister say to the small business people who come to my surgery each week and list the Government-inspired reasons why they no longer want to expand their work force? What would he add to that list, which includes the national insurance increase, stakeholder pensions, the working time directive, new rules for employment tribunals and the fact that businesses are now treated like benefit offices? Will he confirm that the rate of small business failures has actually trebled in the past four years?
    Nigel Griffiths: The national insurance increase that the hon. Gentleman mentions occurred in April and the employment figures were published yesterday. The House will be pleased to note that since April, 63,000 more jobs have been created than lost. Indeed, he will be very pleased to note that in his own constituency, the number of unemployed claimants has fallen by 76, to less than half the figure for 1997.
    Mr. Derek Foster: May I praise the vigour and energy with which my hon. Friend is attempting to increase the number of start-ups in areas such as mine, which has experienced enormous difficulties for some 60 or 70 years? But may I ask him to bear in mind—this has little to do with Government policy—the swingeing increases in employers liability
    1052
    insurance, which are genuinely affecting employment prospects in many companies in my constituency and elsewhere?
    Nigel Griffiths: That is obviously a very serious matter, on which a statement was made in the House before the recess. A report was published in June by the inter-ministerial working group, on which I serve, and placed in the House of Commons Library. It included a number of findings and recommendations, and a second report is due in the autumn. I hope that it will address some of the issues—as we have indeed done—to ensure that no business is left without that vital liability insurance. I am very pleased to have worked with the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI small and medium-sized enterprises council and other representatives of business to ensure that the insurance industry itself is addressing this issue. However, we are constantly monitoring the situation.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: The Minister will trumpet the latest employment figures, but what he does not tell the House is that many of the jobs to which he refers are not being created by small businesses; rather, they are jobs for Government-paid, pen-pushing bureaucrats. Does he believe that requiring small business employers to administer the Government's chaotic tax and benefit system and to become legal experts in every detail of employment law will make it more or less likely that they can continue to create jobs? Does he not understand that the accumulation of new employment regulations, often introduced with the best of intentions—to protect workers' rights—is now in danger of taking away their most basic right of all: the right to a job? Indeed, we can see that happening in Germany, France and Spain.
    Nigel Griffiths: I prefer to be advised by Barclays than by the hon. Gentleman. Its recent survey points out that since 1997, 2.4 million new businesses have started in Britain, which is a result of the climate that we have established. If the hon. Gentleman wants to give lectures on bureaucracy, he has chosen the wrong place. Starting up a business in Britain now takes less than a day and costs less than £100; 10 years ago, setting up some businesses required 28 licences, registrations and certificates.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: That is all very well, but was my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) right to assert that the rate of small businesses going down the drain has trebled in the past four years?
    Nigel Griffiths: I have in front of me the figures for deregistrations—such figures are the most valid measure, and were accepted by previous Governments as well as by this one—which show that the failure of businesses in the past decade or so peaked in 1992. Indeed, in no year of the Labour Government have the figures reached anywhere near the horrendous levels of 1992, when 226,000 businesses went bust. Of course, we support all businesses, and most businesses that fail do so for honest reasons. But as I have told the House before, the real figure is the 2.4 million new start-ups and the best survival rates for small businesses for a decade.

    Horse Racing
    Chris Grayling: What discussions she has had with representatives of the British Horseracing Board about the Office of Fair Trading investigation into the control of British horse racing. [130816]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): A number of written representations have been received from a variety of organisations in relation to that matter.
    Chris Grayling: I represent one of the highest profile race courses in the world. My constituents will not suffer because Epsom will always be the home of the Derby, but those involved in racing are profoundly concerned about the impact of these proposals on the industry as a whole. Will the Minister ensure that the Office of Fair Trading report and any action taken as a result of it does not do irreparable damage to horse racing in this country?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter and I understand that he represents Epsom. Clearly, however, he knows the rules of the competition regime that the Government have put in place, and that it would be wrong for me, as the Minister with responsibility for competition, to become involved in OFT investigations. I have worked closely with colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and have put forward the concerns raised by the industry and on both sides of the House. I am sure that the OFT will take them into consideration, but, at the end of the day, it is the OFT's decision. I should clarify that this is not a Government-inspired investigation. It came about because the British Horseracing Board went to the OFT to secure a decision on certain practices within the industry. I hope that, as the process continues, hon. Members on both sides of the House will make contact with the OFT to express their views.
    Jeff Ennis: Is the Minister aware that there are currently 59 race courses throughout Britain, nine of which are in Yorkshire—my home county and his? Under the current Office of Fair Trading proposals, up to six Yorkshire courses could be closed in the next few years. Does the Minister share my concern and agree that a sport such as horse racing requires a certain amount of central regulation, particularly in respect of the fixture list?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Again I welcome my hon. Friend's interest in the horse racing industry. I know that he is cochairman of the all-party racing and bloodstock group—although I am never too confident about his forecasts on some of the horses that he tells us about. Clearly, he is right that horse racing is prominent and a large employer in Yorkshire. However, the position is that the sponsors of the industry fall within the remit of the DCMS and the competition issues fall within that of the DTI. As I said, it would be wrong for me to influence the outcome of the OFT report in any way, but I am sure that all the concerns will be passed on to the OFT.
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: The Minister will be aware of my Adjournment debate on this matter
    1054
    later today. For now and for the record, is he aware of the letter sent to me by the Minister for Sport, which says
    "I share your view that full implementation of the OFT's rulings, as far as we understand them, may damage the fabric or integrity of the sport"?
    That is quite a profound statement. Is he aware of his powers under section 3(3) of the Competition Act 1998, which states that the Secretary of State may at any time by order amend schedule 3 with respect to the prohibition by providing for one or more additional exclusions? Does the Minister not accept in general terms that sport should qualify for such an exclusion?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I look forward to debating the issue with the hon. Gentleman in greater detail later today, when I hope we can get to the heart of the matter. The letter that he received from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is entirely appropriate. The DCMS covers the horse racing industry and the hon. Gentleman has expressed his concerns. My responsibility in the DTI is for the competition regime and we are still awaiting the outcome of the OFT deliberations.
    Pete Wishart: Is the Minister aware that small but extremely successful national hunt courses, such as Perth race course in my constituency, are deeply concerned about what is being included in the Office of Fair Trading report? What words of comfort can he give to Perth race course that national hunt racing will not be a casualty in this process of change?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point and I refer him to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport. National hunt horse racing—and, indeed, the welfare of all courses—is important. Clearly the words of comfort will have to await the outcome of the OFT report.

    Carlton-Granada Merger
    Mr. Chris Bryant: If she will make a statement on the proposed merger of Carlton and Granada. [130817]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt): The Competition Commission submitted a report to me on the proposed merger on 21 August. In accordance with the usual practice, I shall announce any decisions on the report when it is published. I have informed the parties that I aim to publish the report by the week beginning 6 October.
    Mr. Bryant: My right hon. Friend will know that protracted negotiations are taking place between Carlton, Granada, Sky, Channel 4 and S4C about maintaining the free-to-air option on digital satellite. There is a real possibility that unless some swift resolution is found, people will not be able to watch free-to-air "Coronation Street", for instance, on Christmas day and Boxing day. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to provide a swift resolution, along the lines that

    1055
    she has suggested today, so that Carlton and Granada can sort out their business plans and make a significant contribution to sorting out the problem.
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern about "Coronation Street" on Christmas day, but of course long-standing arrangements enable ITV to negotiate as a network, and it is doing so. Regardless of any decision on the proposed merger—it would be wrong for me to comment on that now—it would in any case be necessary for the new provisions in the Communications Act 2003 to come into effect, which is unlikely to happen until the end of the year.
    Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will know of the excellent production values and the great creative talent that both companies possess, especially the Granada group, which includes Yorkshire Television. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) mentioned "Coronation Street", but my right hon. Friend will know that "Heartbeat" is produced in my constituency. That programme is a great showcase for this country and brings in many tourists. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the merger will not compromise the excellent production values of companies such as Yorkshire Television, but will in fact enhance the showcasing of the wonderful county of Yorkshire?
    Ms Hewitt: I know that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the proposed merger or the report from the Competition Commission, which I shall publish. However, the whole issue of maintaining excellent quality production in the United Kingdom is an important theme in the Communications Act 2003, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I have recently piloted through the House. I know that my hon. Friend will support us in putting the Act into effect.

    World Trade Talks (Developing Countries)
    Mr. Anne Campbell: What assessment she has made of the impact of the world trade talks in Cancun on developing countries. [130818]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I made a full statement on the recent World Trade Organisation ministerial conference yesterday. The statement included an assessment of the impact on developing countries of our failure to reach agreement.
    Mrs. Campbell: I share my right hon. Friend's disappointment that no agreement was reached in Cancun. Can she reassure me that there will be no going back on the progress that was made through negotiations, and that EU Ministers will not expect the Commissioner for Trade to press for agreements on investment and competition, which was one of the causes of the failure?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I said yesterday, if we are to make progress and reach the agreement that we should have reached at Cancun, all member countries will have to pick up from where we left off in Cancun, where we were closer to agreement when we left than when we arrived. I shall seek an early opportunity to talk to ministerial colleagues in the European Union and directly to Commissioner Lamy to ensure that the European Commission, in negotiating on our behalf, sticks to the position that we took—with the full support of the Council of Ministers—that we would no longer press for negotiations in the WTO on investment and competition.
    Sir Robert Smith: Could the Secretary of State clarify the report in yesterday's Financial Times that Pascal Lamy was contemplating moving to bilateral negotiations as a result of what had happened in Cancun? If we are trying to persuade the US not to take the bilateral approach, what discussions has she had with EU colleagues to ensure that that report is erroneous and that the EU will stick to the Cancun approach?
    Ms Hewitt: The Commissioner not only made plain his commitment to multilateral negations, but he reflected the fact that the Council of Ministers will need to discuss our stance on bilateral agreements. Several countries would like bilateral agreements with the EU. Quite rightly, we have put all our effort and energy into the WTO talks and the Doha round, rather than into bilateral agreements. We all need to look at that matter, as one undoubted consequence of the failure to agree at Cancun will be that there will be more of those bilateral agreements, including between G21 members. Our priority in Europe should remain the strengthening of the WTO, and trying to get the Doha round back on track.
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: I welcome the emergence of the G21 countries as a power bloc within the WTO, and the possible change in the balance of power inside that organisation. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will do all in their power to ensure that that development, and the possibility that bilateral trade talks might be opened with some countries, does not prejudice the prospects of the very small and underdeveloped countries that are not part of the G21 bloc?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. There was a tendency in much of the early comment on the G21 group to assume that it spoke for the whole of the developing world. Not surprisingly, that was resented quite strongly by many of the smaller developing countries, not least those in Africa. Clearly, it is not up to us to decide what countries such as Brazil, China and India do in the future, but we will continue to speak up for the interests of the poorer developing countries. They had the most to gain from an agreement at Cancun, and from successful completion of the Doha round. We will continue to put their interests first in the work that we do, both on trade and on development.

    Post Office
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: If she will make a statement on the take-up of the Post Office card account and its effects on the post office network. [130819]
    The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I understand from the Department for Work and Pensions that by 5 September just over 1 million customers had requested a Post Office card account, and, from the Post Office, that 566,000 card accounts had been opened by that date. I expect the accounts, and the expansion of banking at post offices, to have a positive effect.
    Mr. Simmonds: The House and the country will be relieved that postal workers have defied their left-wing leadership, but the Minister should be aware of the great concern that exists about the Post Office card account, in Lincolnshire and across the UK. What justification can the Minister assemble for the fact that it has been made virtually impossible for elderly and vulnerable people to remove money from rural post offices? Many of those offices have been rendered unsustainable, and that could rip the heart out of many rural communities.
    Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The Government have invested £500 million in the technology for universal banking. Contrary to the predictions of Opposition Members, that was a successful IT project: it started up on time and is working extremely well. It gives the Post Office an opportunity to serve millions of bank current accounts, which was not possible in the past. That is a fantastic opportunity for post offices, and they are moving to take advantage of it.
    I can tell the hon. Gentleman that well over 50 per cent. of pensioners—55 per cent. at the last count—who have received letters from the Department for Work and Pensions have requested card accounts. It is completely wrong to say that it is impossible for them to do so. Indeed, Postwatch has carried out surveys of those who have used the helpline. The results show that 88 per cent. of pensioners said that the advice was given to them in a clear and unbiased manner, and that 95 per cent. said that their questions were answered satisfactorily. There is a fantastic opportunity for the post office network arising from the Government's investment of £500 million. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will encourage local sub-postmasters to make the most of it.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: Does my hon. Friend agree that a major problem with Post Office accounts is that many elderly and housebound pensioners are unwilling to give their PIN to social workers who collect their pensions for them? What measures will he put in place to ensure that their accounts are secure?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We have been careful about the security of accounts. It has been arranged that a second card with a separate PIN will be available for use at a pensioner's
    1058
    local post office by a nominated person, such as a social worker. We hope that that will be a secure arrangement for the collection of money.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: The Minister will be aware that take-up of the Post Office card account in Scotland is severely constrained by the continued failure to secure agreement between post offices and clearing banks in Scotland. May I give an assurance that he will intervene to resolve that situation, which is creating ongoing problems for many of my constituents and for many people in rural Scotland?
    Mr. Timms: All the major banks in the UK, including those in Scotland, have basic bank accounts that can be accessed at the local post office, so I do not think there will be a problem along the lines the hon. Gentleman set out. Of course, it would certainly be helpful if other clearing banks followed the example set by Lloyds TSB, Barclays and Alliance & Leicester in opening up all their current accounts to post office access. That would be most welcome. The fact remains, however, that every bank has a basic bank account that can be operated at a local post office.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: How many people are pushed into using bank accounts instead of Post Office card accounts because the closure of their local post office makes things difficult for them? At present, that is a problem at Coal Aston in my constituency. It would be a bad thing if people were put off the scheme and its provisions because they no longer had a proper post office.
    Mr. Timms: It is important to bear in mind that people wanting to use their local post office can do so with a basic bank account and with several ordinary bank accounts, as well as with a Post Office card account. However, I have some good news for my hon. Friend about migration. The urban reinvention programme was built on the assumption that 80 per cent. of the business from a closing office would transfer to another local post office. The first evidence, from the 200 post offices that closed in March and April, is that the proportion migrating to another post office was even higher; the figure was 85 per cent. in March and 87 per cent. in April. A good and high proportion of people are going to another post office in their local area.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Further to that answer, can the Minister confirm that if bank customers are to be able to draw cash across the counter at the post office, their bank needs to have a banking services agreement with the Post Office, and that four of the leading banks—Halifax, Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland, Abbey National and HSBC—are refusing to enter into such agreements? [HON. MEMBERS: "That's. five."] Well, two of them have merged.
    What are the Minister's ideas for persuading those banks to join the system, as, if they do not, all their millions of customers will, in effect, be lost to the Post Office?
    Mr. Timms: As I mentioned a moment ago, all the banks to which the hon. Gentleman referred have basic bank accounts that can be accessed at local post offices. It is the case, however, that their other ordinary current accounts cannot currently be accessed at the post office, unlike the 20 million current accounts with Lloyds TSB, Barclays and Alliance & Leicester that can be fully accessed. The Post Office is in discussion with the other banks about signing such agreements with them, too, and I wish them well in that work. Increasingly, those banks' customers will want to be able to access their accounts at their local post office just like customers of Lloyds TSB, Barclays and Alliance and Leicester. That may prove to be the most effective lever.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Will the Minister join me in congratulating members of the Communication Workers Union on exercising rights given by Conservative employment laws to turn down the call from their union leaders for a strike that would have been extremely damaging?
    On the post office network, is it not the case that post offices are likely to close more quickly if the Post Office cannot reach agreement with the banks to enable benefit claimants and pensioners to receive cash across the counter? Coupled with the obstacles that the Government have put in the way of pensioners who want to open Post Office card accounts, does not that mean that vulnerable people are suffering and that the post office network is likely to contract even more quickly because of the Government's policy?
    Mr. Timms rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister will not answer questions about the postal dispute, which has nothing to do with the matter before us.
    Mr. Timms: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
    On the point about pensioners using post offices, I have already told the House that 55 per cent. of pensioners who were asked have already chosen a Post Office card account, compared to 28 per cent. of benefit recipients altogether. What that shows is that the Post Office card account is very attractive to pensioners and they are getting their Post Office card accounts as a result, but what is really important for the Post Office, particularly in the long term, is not to miss the much bigger opportunity of ensuring that customers who are familiar with using bank accounts can use their accounts at their local post office if they want to do so. The Post Office needs to make the most of that big opportunity.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If she will make a statement on recent progress with the urban network reinvention programme for the Post Office. [130820]
    The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): By the end of August, 492 post offices had closed under the programme. In response to observations by hon. Members and others, Post Office Ltd. intends to complete the programme now on an area-by-area basis. The areas will comprise groups of parliamentary constituencies; the Post Office will consult on a single plan comprising all the proposals
    1060
    in each area; and public consultation on each proposal will last for six weeks. The Post Office has also announced an acceleration of the programme: it now aims to complete the consultations on all its proposals in every area by December next year.
    Mr. Robathan: It is the acceleration that I am concerned about. Following a parliamentary question that I tabled in April, I corresponded with David Mills, the chief executive of the Post Office, about paying bonuses to managers for closing down post offices as quickly as possible. Will the Minister confirm that the Post Office is indeed paying managers bonuses to close post offices? Is this the first time that taxpayers' money has been paid in bonuses to close down part of a highly valued public service in the teeth of strong opposition from those same taxpayers?
    Mr. Timms: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. There is no financial incentive for managers to close post offices. The hon. Gentleman has made that point on a number of occasions, but it is simply incorrect. Each closure involves a very careful process. There is thorough consultation, and we have given substantial funding to Postwatch to carry it out very carefully. Quite a number of the proposals have been varied as a result of that process. What is important, of course, is that it is I think widely accepted that the number of urban offices needs to be reduced to ensure a sustainable future for the whole network. That needs to be carefully managed, which is the aim of the programme, and I believe that it is succeeding.
    Richard Burden: I welcome the change to an area-based approach to the reinvention programme because one of the problems has been that branch closures were often considered in isolation from one another, but will my hon. Friend speak to the Post Office to ensure that proper consultation takes place on the strategy? Local communities have to be involved because the benefits offered by the plan will be lost if local communities—rather than the usual suspects—are involved only in proposals to close branches, rather than in building confidence in the overall strategy.
    Mr. Timms: I very much agree with my hon. Friend both about the benefits of the changed arrangements and about the importance of thorough and careful consultation throughout, particularly involving local communities, on the plans for an area. I will certainly ensure that the points that he makes are passed on to Post Office Ltd.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the needs of vulnerable people in deprived urban areas remain paramount under the programme? Will he consider extending the support available to post offices and sub-post offices to enable them to increase the range of work that they undertake, to permit them to remain open in a viable way?
    Mr. Timms: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the impact on vulnerable people and people who are not very mobile is an essential element in reaching all these decisions. I think that she would agree, however, that a properly managed programme of this kind is

    1061
    much better than the alternative—disorderly decline—because there has been a reduction in business and it is therefore important that we have a programme that ensures that network coverage continues to be effective throughout all areas. At the end of the programme, 95 per cent. of the urban population will still be within a mile of their local post office, but I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of ensuring that the needs of vulnerable people in each area are properly taken into account. Funding is available to improve offices, and I want to ensure that we make a success of that part of the programme, as well as the closures.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: Will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise to the people of Pagham for the closure on 18 August this year of the Pagham post office, and for the enormous inconvenience and expense that that is causing to many hundreds of elderly and in many cases infirm people, who have had to go to enormous lengths to find alternative post offices from which to collect their pension?
    Mr. Timms: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that I know well that this closure has caused a good deal of concern, and he has frequently been in correspondence with me about it. I have looked at the procedure that was followed, and found that there was a thorough consultation process, on the basis of which the Post Office reached the decision that led to the closure. Of course, every community will regret the closure of a local post office, but the reality is that as we were in a position in which over 1,000 urban post offices had 10 or more other branches within a mile, a process of rationalisation was necessary.

    Electronics Industry
    David Cairns: What estimate she has made of the number of manufacturing jobs in the UK electronics sector that have been lost to eastern Europe in the last five years. [130822]
    The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): In the face of stiff global competition, UK electronic manufacturing jobs, particularly lower value-added ones, have moved to other parts of the world including eastern Europe. That is why the Government have set up, with industry, an electronics innovation and growth team to establish a long-term strategy for the sector to compete globally, exploiting its strengths.
    David Cairns: I thank my soon-to-be right hon. Friend for her answer. May I tell her that in the last few months alone my constituency has lost several hundred jobs in the electronics sector to eastern Europe, with the prospect of more to follow? We cannot compete with the wage rates being offered in eastern Europe or China, and nor should we try, but the electronics sector has been good for my constituency and good for the UK economy over many years. What assurances can she give my constituents that this Government remain committed to a strong and vibrant UK electronics
    1062
    industry, and what practical steps can we take to ensure that good, high-paid, high-skilled jobs can be retained in Scotland and elsewhere?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend has been an important champion for the electronics industry in his constituency. Rightly, however, he understands and emphasises the need to ensure that we concentrate, as the Government have said in their manufacturing strategy, on how we move those industries up the value chain to focus on higher-technology, higher value-added production and jobs. That is the task for the innovation and growth team, who are starting by assessing the global competitiveness of the electronics industry, but who will be developing a programme for the future development of the electronics industry and making specific recommendations to Government. I expect that to help with some of the encouraging signs that we are seeing in the electronics industry, which I was able to discuss yesterday with the Engineering Employers Federation. I would also expect that to impact on my hon. Friend's constituency, where, clearly, electronics, and particularly that more sophisticated work, is crucial to his constituents.
    Mr. Robert Key: Only yesterday, my constituent, Kate Williams, e-mailed me to say that at the ripe old age of 21 she was concerned for her job. Are there any international treaty obligations, trade arrangements or codes of practice, in an increasingly globalised economy, whereby the Government are concerned to ensure that the impact on the countries that are taking those jobs is not to their disadvantage in the longer run? That applies not only across the electronics industry but in financial services, too.
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman, as we all are, is rightly concerned about the job and economic prospects for his constituents. The emphasis that we need to place, however, not only in electronics but more broadly in manufacturing—and the emphasis that this Government, in the first manufacturing strategy for 30 years, have placed—is on both the practical support and Government action necessary to ensure that we build our manufacturing industry on the basis of high-value-added jobs with high pay and high levels of skills. I assure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that that is what we have planned and what we will do.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Can my hon. Friend tell us what she proposes to do to help secure those more highly skilled jobs? One of the difficulties of the flight of jobs eastward has been that, in the main, they have not been of the highest order and skill content. The people who are left are not yet properly equipped to take on the kind of employment for which she has ambitions. In the interim, it is essential that we do far more in those particularly vulnerable areas to get the skill levels up. Although that is not exclusively the responsibility of the DTI, it is a matter on which she could surely act and lever more resources to get these people the skills they require to become potentially attractive employees.
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend raises a crucial point. When talking about jobs moving perhaps from assembly and straightforward manufacture in the

    1063
    electronics industry to the configuration of systems and support for those systems, it is certainly the case that we need to focus on skills. That is why one of the key elements of the manufacturing strategy is the development of skills and why my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Education and Skills published the skills strategy just before the recess. We shall focus on how we can ensure that there will be a better response to employers' needs and the delivery of skills for precisely the sort of workers about whom my hon. Friend talks. Specifically on electronics, SEMTA, the new sector skills council that covers electronics, was licensed in April. I know that it, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Education and Skills and the devolved Administrations in Scotland are working hard to ensure that we make the UK No. 1 for the supply of skills for information technology, telecommunications and electronics because that is how we shall make the electronics industry a success and provide opportunities for the constituents of my hon. Friend and others who work in the electronics industry.
    Michael Fabricant: The hon. Lady is quite right to point out the difference in wage costs, but that is not the whole picture, is it? There are more reasons why companies such as Siemens up sticks and move across to Germany and why Xarr in Cambridge moves to Sweden than only differential wage costs. That happens because the growth of this country's productivity since the Labour Government got in is only half that recorded when the Conservative Government were in power. We now find out from the European Union that our monthly wage costs are the second highest in the EU—Germany and France are cheaper than us. How will she reverse that damaging trend?
    Jacqui Smith: The first thing that I shall not do is to take lessons on job creation from Conservative Members. However, they fairly highlight the challenge that the Government have taken up to ensure that we improve productivity and competitiveness for our manufacturing industries. As I have spelled out on our manufacturing strategy, we have not only outlined the problem but put in place macro-economic stability and supply-side policies, which the Conservative Government were unwilling to do. They will make a difference to our manufacturing industry, safeguard high-quality jobs and provide the wealth for this country that the Conservative Government so sadly failed to do in relation to the manufacturing industry.
    Andy Burnham: May I welcome yesterday's news that unemployment is at its lowest level since 1975 but urge the ministerial team not to allow celebrations to obscure the fact that severe problems exist in manufacturing, especially in areas such as Leigh? In August, the electrical components manufacturer Electrium announced its closure in my constituency, which will result in the loss of 160 jobs. That is the seventh major redundancy in the past two years in the manufacturing sector and, in total, more than 1,400 jobs have gone. Will my right hon. Friend speak urgently to the Northwest Development Agency to examine the problems in our local manufacturing base and,
    1064
    especially, to find out whether more help could be given to the manufacturers that remain, such as Barlo engineering in Leigh?
    Jacqui Smith: I hope that my hon. Friend does not believe that we are complacent. I would like to characterise us as having a steely determination to ensure that UK manufacturing industry is able to come out of that situation in the face of significant global competition and challenges and be as profitable and significant for the UK economy as we know that it should. As I said, I spoke to the Engineering Employers Federation yesterday about its view on optimistic signs for the engineering industry and its strong view—with which we completely concur—that we need continued Government action on innovation, skills and investment to create the manufacturing industry that we all want.
    My hon. Friend also raises an important point about the role of regional development agencies, which now have more funding, more flexibility and a more specific remit for working in the manufacturing sector. The Northwest Development Agency will play an active role in both safeguarding and creating high-quality manufacturing jobs.

    Post Office
    David Taylor: If she will make a statement on recent progress with the urban network reinvention programme. [130823]
    The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier answer.
    David Taylor: Notwithstanding the Minister's earlier answer, does he not accept that the Post Office is conducting the network review in a somewhat confused, incoherent and clumsy fashion while the benefit payment hotline is without doubt coercing some card account applicants into considering direct payment instead? Does he therefore understand why so many of us fear that the present unacceptable rate of branch closure will accelerate unless and until the assetstripping top management is replaced by those with a vision of a vibrant third-millennium Post Office?
    Mr. Timms: I think it has been a rather good 24 hours for the Post Office management. I do not agree with my hon. Friend about the urban reinvention programme. However, I think that he will welcome the different arrangements that I have described, which will apply from hereon, because they will provide the opportunity for a strategic overview to be taken of the pattern of the post office network throughout an area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said.
    On the helpline, I told the House that the evidence is that pensioners are getting the information they want. They are finding it helpful. My hon. Friend will be aware that people are increasingly choosing to use bank accounts. Some 43 per cent. of benefit customers now do that—up from just 26 per cent. in 1996—and 60 per cent.

    1065
    of new pensioners have already chosen a bank account in which to receive their pension. The Post Office needs to adapt to the new environment and new needs.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister confirm that no customer will be more than 1 mile from a post office under the urban network reinvention programme? What is the comparable figure for rural post office customers?
    Mr. Timms: The requirement that we have placed on the Post Office is that 95 per cent. of urban residents should be within 1 mile of their local post office at the end of the process compared with something like 97 per cent. today. I do not have the comparable figure for rural post offices, although I shall send that to the hon. Lady.

    World Trade Organisation (Cancun)
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: If she will make a statement on the World Trade Organisation negotiations in Cancun. [130826]
    The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement to the House on the World Trade Organisation summit at Cancun. My right hon. Friend said that we need to renew discussions based on the concessions offered by delegates at Cancun.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure he will appreciate that the situation is serious for the third world. In light of his answer, does he have a time scale for restarting talks with our European partners so that we protect the third world from the worst effects of the breakdown of the talks?
    Mr. O'Brien: At Cancun a deadline was set of 15 December for a meeting of officials to resolve the issues not sorted out at the WTO summit. My right hon. Friend and I talked to Dr. Supachai, the director-general of the WTO, about how the UK can help to drive the agenda forward. We made it clear that investment and competition should be off the agenda. In addition, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have announced a new initiative to help developing countries to overcome problems in adjusting to a new trading environment. The UK will make a substantial input into the design and implementation of that initiative, so that will help. We are also providing extra funding to developing countries to assist them with the negotiations. In terms of a deadline, we are looking at 15 December, and the UK is doing all it can to help drive negotiations forward.

    Ceramics Industry
    Ann Winterton: What assessment she has made of the competitiveness of the UK's ceramics industry. [130827]
    The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): A strategic analysis of the sector was undertaken in 1999, and that study led to the establishment of the ceramic industry forum, which focuses on improving
    1066
    competitiveness in the sector, supported by £3.3 million of DTI funding. Ministers and officials also maintain close contact with firms and intermediaries in the ceramics industry through regular meetings covering a wide range of issues.
    Ann Winterton: Does the Minister acknowledge that a major reason why the United Kingdom's ceramic industry has been better able than its European counterparts to withstand competition from low-cost manufacturers is the comparative flexibility of the UK's labour markets introduced, I hasten to add, by a Conservative Government? However, is she aware that ceramic firms in my constituency and, indeed, the British Ceramic Federation fear that that advantage is being severely diminished as a result of the Government's incessant implementation of added costs and regulations, many of the latter unrelated to the industry's purpose or, indeed, its impacts on, for example, the environment?
    Jacqui Smith: The success of the ceramics industry probably also has something to do with the skills and dedication of the work force and the expertise of management. Nevertheless, the hon. Lady asked a question about regulation. As the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths) made clear in response to question 1, we take that issue seriously with respect to both new and existing businesses. However, as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recently pointed out, under this Government, the UK is one of the most effective and efficient countries in which to do business. I have no doubt that that will continue.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Private Members' Clubs
    Mr. Robert Walter: What plans she has to introduce legislation to provide for equality of membership rights in private members' clubs. [130833]
    The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): It is unacceptable for women to be treated as second-class citizens in private clubs, contrary to the Government's principles of opportunity for all, and I know in this context at least, the hon. Gentleman's view of those principles. We have supported private Members' legislation in this area in the past, and we are keeping the situation of private clubs and sex discrimination under review.
    Mr. Walter: I think that many Members will be disappointed by that answer, as I am not sure that the Government have supported private Members' legislation. On three occasions, I have introduced legislation in the House, and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) introduced a Bill in this Session that made no progress because of lack of Government support. In the other place, legislation completed all its stages and arrived in this House in the

    1067
    last Session, despite the fact that it had the full support of the Government Front Bench in the other place. Can the Minister give us a clue as to whether the Queen's Speech contains legislation on the subject?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows that, much as I respect his position on this issue, I will not give him any clues about what is contained in the Queen's Speech. Much as I share his concerns about this particular discrimination, the timing of the introduction of legislation is not always the responsibility of individual Ministers. I assure him that we have supported private Members' legislation and will keep this area under review. Subject to parliamentary time in future, there may well be opportunities for us to take action.

    Maternity Provision
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement on maternity provision for working women. [130835]
    The Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Maternity leave and pay were increased in April 2003 as part of our new measures to help parents balance work and family life. All mothers can take 26 weeks ordinary maternity leave, and maternity payment has been increased to £100 a week. Because we have reduced the qualifying service for additional maternity leave, most mothers can also now choose to take up to one year off work in total.
    Mr. Chapman: It has been argued that the proposals introduced by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to expand and standardise the provision of IVF in the national health service would help those women who choose to start a family after establishing their career. What is my right hon. Friend's view of the belief that IVF facilities could be of value in achieving equality in the workplace?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly more women are choosing to postpone having a family, then sometimes discovering that they have an unexpected and extremely distressing problem of infertility. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and his colleagues are currently looking at NICE's draft proposals, and we at the DTI will continue to do everything that we can to support parents in balancing their work and family life.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: First, I wish the Minister a speedy recovery from what sounds like the Cancun cold.
    Women returning to work after having a baby need to be able to achieve a good work/life balance. Six months ago, the Government launched an initiative to give parents with a child under the age of six the right to demand flexible hours. However, in a recent survey by KPMG, it was discovered that only one in 1,300 workers had taken advantage of those new laws. Can the Minister explain why the uptake is so poor?
    Ms Hewitt: We are working closely with employers and trade unions to ensure that parents know their new
    1068
    rights and can take advantage of them, but the low take-up so far partly reflects the fact that the new rights have been in effect for only a couple of months, and the fact that, particularly in the public sector, but also in a growing number of private sector companies, a great deal of flexibility is already available. What we have done through the new legal measures is to strengthen the changes that are already taking place. We will go on doing everything we can—with the hon. Lady's support, I hope—to ensure that parents working in companies that do not yet offer those benefits of flexibility feel empowered to take up the new rights we have given them—against, I recall, the opposition of the Conservative party.
    Sandra Gidley: Is the Minister aware that despite the increase earlier this year, a survey of 60 countries showed that maternity pay in the UK is in the bottom quarter, and that a woman living in the UK and earning £15,000 a year would receive £2,458 over six months, which is just over half the EU average of £4,198? When does she expect the levels in the UK to reach the EU average?
    Ms Hewitt: We have taken an enormous step forward in increasing levels of maternity pay and increasing the right of women to take maternity leave. In addition, we have introduced for the first time ever two weeks' paid paternity leave for new fathers. I note that the Liberal Democrats want to increase public spending. No doubt they will publish proposals for increased taxation to match that.

    Employment Opportunities
    Michael Fabricant: What steps she is taking to increase the number of women employed in service industries; and if she will make a statement. [130836]
    The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): It is a pleasure to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions twice in one hour. Action to make work pay and to help parents balance work and family life will promote employment opportunities for women across the labour market, including service industries. For example, 70 per cent. of those benefiting from the national minimum wage are women, and we estimate that the duty on employers to consider seriously requests for flexible working will enable 55,000 mothers to return to work.
    Michael Fabricant: I thank the Minister for that answer. We will probably get on better in this second session than in the first one. Does she agree that the appointment of Barbara Cassani as the chief executive of the British Olympic Association bid is a good example of how women can play an important role in service industries? What steps is the Department taking to increase the aspiration of young women going into business not to go into service industries to work at

    1069
    checkouts in places like Waitrose, or even, dare I say, into hairdressing, but to go into areas such as banking and the promotion of Britain?
    Jacqui Smith: I share many of the hon. Gentleman's—
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: — hairdressers.
    Jacqui Smith: No, but I share his view that hairdressing is an important and honourable profession. We must be careful not to denigrate the areas of work that women go into, although we must make sure that they are getting proper training and proper pay. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) makes an important point about women in leadership positions. One of the issues that concerns us is how we can ensure that more women get into our boardrooms, where their contribution in a leadership role would be good for businesses, good for their profile, and as the hon. Gentleman points out, good for other women going into business and aspiring to the higher levels. The hon. Gentleman is right: we can certainly agree on that today.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government's record on increasing the availability of child care as well as introducing working tax credits has done more than anything else in recent history to improve the employability of women not only in the service industries, but in higher paid jobs in professional and manufacturing industries?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course, it is not only about aspirations for women to be able to enter the workplace, but about taking action, as this Government have been willing to do with respect to child care, the new deal for
    1070
    lone parents and partners, the child tax credit and the support that we are giving to women entrepreneurs, which will make a difference for women in the choice that they can make about whether they work. That is good for those women and our economy and businesses, and our society as a whole.

    Women's Income
    Hugh Bayley: What assessment she has made of the impact of the Government's tax credits and benefits changes on women's income. [130837]
    The Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Changes in tax credits and benefits between 1997 and October 2003 will mean that, on average, men gain £1.58 a week and women gain £14.34.
    Hugh Bayley: I am glad that the Government share my view that, when it comes to the welfare of children, it is important to transfer money from the wallet to the purse. What proportion of those receiving the new tax credits are women and what proportion are men? Now that we have had the opportunity to overcome the teething problems of the introduction of the new tax credits, can my right hon. Friend tell me how many men and women in the UK now receive them?
    Ms Hewitt: More than 85 per cent. of child tax credit awards are being paid to women. Of course, that reflects the choices that parents themselves are making. While I agree with my hon. Friend's general point, I should add that there is a growing minority of families in which the father is the main carer of the child. It is extremely important that he should also have access to child tax credits and child benefit. We are now paying out child tax credits and other family tax credits to millions of families throughout the United Kingdom, all of whom have warmly welcomed this increase in their family incomes.

Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I ask the part-time Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): I am delighted to see that the prefix has returned, because it was omitted last week and I felt a little neglected.
The business for the week after the conference recess will be:
TUESDAY 14 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 15 OCTOBER—Opposition Day [18th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 16 OCTOBER—A debate on defence policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 17 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week after will include:
MONDAY 20 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Courts Bill [Lords].
As the House will know, I informed the House yesterday of the date of the Queen's Speech. I intend to publish an annual calendar for this House for the new Session next month.
Mr. Forth: I am sure that the House will be particularly grateful for that last item.
Unusually, yesterday's Prime Minister's questions were almost completely free of porkies, obfuscations and evasions, so I think that we will leave them for another day. Following up what the part-time Leader of the House said about the date of the Queen's Speech, for which we are grateful, and given that it is relatively late this year, can he tell us how much pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills can now take place before the new Session? A great song and dance has been made about pre-legislative scrutiny. I am sure that it is welcomed in all parts of the House, but we would like a bit of substance from the Government about how much scrutiny will be conducted and which Bills we will see before the late start of the new Session.
When will the pre-Budget review take place? Is the Chancellor eager to come to the House and give us his review of the state of the economy? Perhaps we could get a date for that. Are the Government now going to set about prioritising their business ahead of 26 November to ensure that they have an appropriate amount of business, not least in another place, to honour the date of the Queen's Speech? I should be interested to get a glimpse into how the Government think that they are going to get their business through Parliament, especially through another place, while honouring that date of 26 November.
I wonder whether we could have a debate entitled, "Do Ministers care so little about MPs and Parliament that they neglect their duties in the recess?" I say that because a letter has fallen into my hands from a nice
1072
young man called Gerry Sutcliffe MP, who appears to be Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers. On 19 August, he wrote a letter to one of my colleagues that began:
"Thank you for your letter of 14 July".
It may seem unexceptional in this day and age that a Minister should take a month to write to a Member of Parliament—there is nothing unusual about that—but the really interesting bit comes next. This nice young man, Gerry, says:
"During parliamentary recess, Mr Sutcliffe is out of the office and unable to answer your query. Upon his return in September, he will ensure that your query is dealt with as swiftly as possible."
Does that exemplify the attitude of the Blair Government to Members of Parliament and to this House? Do Ministers no longer feel that they have a responsibility to man Departments through the summer recess or to give proper responses to Members of Parliament? If this letter is typical, what is the part-time Leader of the House going to do about it? Does he write to people saying, "I'm not around, so you shouldn't expect a reply"? I hope to be told that this was a regrettable slip and that it will not happen any more.
Has the part-time Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1700, entitled "Portcullis pension scheme and rights of staff"?
[That this House welcomes the introduction of the Portcullis pension plan, particularly for those on the staff of honourable Members who do not have existing pension arrangements, those in new employment, and those who have established that it offers better provision than their existing arrangements; but does not wish the staff of honourable Members to be compelled to join the scheme if they assess that it is likely to be inferior to their existing pension arrangements or is otherwise against their expressed wishes.]
It has already been signed by several Members—unusually, and significantly, of all parties—and it raises a number of important issues about our staff's pension rights. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will have received representations on that, because we are getting ourselves into a serious position.
Having given the part-time Leader of the House's office notice that I intended to raise the subject, I want to ask the following questions. On what authority are employer contributions to individual pension schemes to be terminated, as is the intention? When were staff—not Members, but staff—properly consulted and informed about what is going to happen to their pensions? What provision is to be made to enable staff who would suffer financial loss from a change of pension provider to remain with their existing scheme? To give two examples, what will happen to someone who has their mortgage guaranteed by their pension or who has paid their fees up front and therefore cannot benefit from the reduction in fees that is claimed to be one of the benefits of the new regime?
I hope that the part-time Leader of the House will be able to give full and satisfactory answers to those questions. Many Members' staff are very worried and unhappy about the matter. It has been grotesquely mishandled thus far, and I hope that it is not too late to

1073
deal with it. At the very least, can implementation be postponed so that the situation can be properly sorted out?
Mr. Hain: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the Dispatch Box. As a self-proclaimed technophobe, he boasted that he had never visited a website: when he launched the parliamentary press gallery website, he said that he hoped to get through life without ever doing so. It will be a mercy for the House if we can bring him into the 21st century.
Mr. Forth: Not a chance.
Mr. Hain: There we have it. That is what makes him such a delightful opponent across the Floor of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about pre-legislative scrutiny before the next Session. As he knows, the Government have made a virtue of such scrutiny, and more Bills than ever have been subject to it. The practice increases year by year, as it will in the forthcoming Session.
I am not in a position to give an answer on when the pre-Budget review will take place. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would be frustrated in meeting the deadline of the Queen's Speech and whether legislation would complete its passage through the House of Lords by Prorogation. I am sure that the Lords will not wish to frustrate the will of the elected House and that both Houses will hold a genuine dialogue. We shall carefully consider any amendments, arguments and expertise. However, we are confident that we can complete our legislative programme in time for Prorogation before the Queen's Speech.
Given that the right hon. Gentleman is an outstanding parliamentarian, I hope that he gave the Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers notice of the matter that he raised. The episode happened in the middle of a difficult time for my hon. Friend, when his mother died. The right hon. Gentleman should not draw conclusions from the individual letter and case about the general pattern of Government.
The right hon. Gentleman properly raised the concerns that have been expressed about Members' pensions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Staff pensions."] I apologise: I mean staff pensions. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Some conversations are taking place in the Chamber. Staff pensions are important to me, too, and I want to hear what the Leader of the House has to say on the matter.
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman raised important points, which I shall note. I have offered to meet the trade unions and anyone else who has concerns, which I shall happily take up. However, I believe that some mischief has been made about the matter. Nobody will be forced to join the new scheme if they can demonstrate that they will be disadvantaged. People need to fill in a form to obtain proper information from their pension provider. There will be no question of a financial loss—
1074
that is not the purpose of the new scheme. Its purpose is to modernise pension arrangements and provide a more secure, better scheme for staff. If there are any concerns, we want to deal with them. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing them to the House's attention.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I strongly endorse on behalf of my hon. Friends the expression of concern in early-day motion 1700 on the pension scheme and the rights of staff? Whatever the Leader of the House has been briefed to say, I must tell him that staff believe that they have not been properly consulted. Unless there is some delay to enable that consultation—especially with the Secretaries and Assistants Council—to take place and an opportunity for staff to make representations, they will feel railroaded. It is a blot on the reputation of the House as an employer that consultation has not yet taken place.
What contingency plans has the Leader of House to ensure that the House receives an early statement on the outcome of the Hutton inquiry? I hope that he has carefully examined the comments that Dr. Hans Blix made yesterday and on the "Today" programme this morning. Is it not clear that we will need a statement from the Attorney-General on the adequacy of the advice that he gave the Government on the legality of going to war in Iraq? We need to know especially whether the Attorney-General was aware of the fragility of the 45-minute claim and whether he knew that the armaments mentioned were battlefield weapons that posed no threat to the United Kingdom or to British forces stationed in Cyprus. That is crucial.
The evidence that Dr. Hans Blix has presented blows to smithereens both the September and February dossiers. I hope that the Leader of the House acknowledges that it requires a separate statement from the Attorney-General, distinct from one on the Hutton inquiry. When does the Leader of the House expect hon. Members to be properly informed on those matters?
Mr. Hain: First, as the hon. Gentleman knows, staff pensions are a matter for the Speaker's Advisory Panel. The purpose of the change is to give staff a better pension. If individual members of staff have concerns, I am sure that the authorities will want to resolve them in favour of the staff. As I said earlier, my door is open. I believe, however, that this issue has been brought to the attention of the House in a manner that is out of proportion to the actuality on the ground.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the outcome of the Hutton inquiry. As I have said, I am sure that there will be a statement and, I hope, a debate on that issue. However, his remarks about Hans Blix sounded rather like an old gramophone record, and were full of puffed-up indignation. As he knows, the Intelligence and Security Committee concluded that the evidence provided to the Government and to the requisite authorities on the basis of which the dossier was drawn up had been properly dealt with, properly processed and properly interpreted. I prefer to listen to the evidence of the Intelligence and Security Committee than to Hans Blix, who was pronouncing on another matter entirely.
Mr. George Howarth: The House will have noted that, in a speech to the

1075
Press Gallery earlier this week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ruled out any review of the new sittings arrangements for the House for the lifetime of this Parliament. Will he accept, however, that a large number of Members feel that there is considerable scope for adjustment of those hours, including some of the Members who voted for them? Given that there is a powerful case building up for changes to be made, does he not think it unwise to rule out any adjustment whatever?
Mr. Hain: The House made a decision, rightly or wrongly, in October last year, to change the hours of its sittings. That was a decision taken for the rest of this Parliament, to be subject to review after proper assessment had been made of it. We are only a few months into it, frankly, and an early-day motion condemning it had already appeared within 14 working days of the change being made. We should take this matter stage by stage, and review it, but I am open to considering adjustments. For example, I think that there is a strong case for changing the sitting hours of Standing Committees; they probably sit too early. It is within the power of a Standing Committees to alter its hours, if they are putting pressure on—
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Ministers.
Mr. Hain: Actually, that is not the point. Ministers get up very early, and are on duty very early, as it is. The serious issue that has been brought to my attention by many Members on both sides of the House and by members of the Speaker's Panel is that officials of the House are perhaps having to prepare earlier than we would want them to. So if there is a question of starting Standing Committee sittings later, I am sure that we can make such adjustments. The terms of the motion passed on the fundamental hours changes, however, were that they should remain until the end of this Parliament, and I intend to respect that decision.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Given that the Leader of the House is already developing a reputation for listening carefully to what is said in this place, will he think further about the comments that have just been made by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) and bear in mind the fact that many of us, on both sides of the House, think that to wait through a whole Parliament before reviewing these matters could be a mistake? We are already aware of the unintended consequences of the changes to the hours. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore keep an open mind about the possibility of revisiting the matter before the end of this Parliament?
Mr. Hain: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East—I am happy to repeat the point to the hon. Gentleman, whose views on this matter I respect—the fundamental principles of the hours change were decided for the rest of this Parliament. However, anomalies might appear as we go along, and adjustments might seem sensible—indeed, I have suggested one myself. I have been listening hard to that point, and I think that there is a lot of sense in it. Standing Committees have the right to vary their hours,
1076
and to start later and run later if that is what they wish to do. If there are any other practical changes that we could consider, I would be very happy to do so, but the fundamental principle was decided for the rest of this Parliament.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: We now have a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, which is meeting after a gap of about 25 years. Given the Government's commitment to regionalism, would it not be a good idea to set up a Standing Committee for each of the eight English standard regions? We could meet to discuss regional affairs here at Westminster, but we could also travel to our own regions and discuss them there.
Mr. Hain: I know that that has been suggested, and we can keep it under review. I should like to see how the newly established Regional Affairs Committee works before we decide whether any such modifications are needed.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: The Leader of the House will know that, very courageously, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) recently undertook an undercover tour of Zimbabwe. Her report, which has been widely circulated, shows that the situation there is deteriorating hugely under the dreadful Mugabe regime. The right hon. Gentleman has responded to me sympathetically in the past. Is it not about time we had a statement or a debate on Zimbabwe, preferably before the Commonwealth conference that will take place in Nigeria later this year?
Mr. Hain: I strongly agree that the Mugabe regime is dreadful beyond words, and is destroying a beautiful country along with, sadly, many of its people. My hon. Friend's report makes salutary reading for those who have found it possible to turn their backs on, or their eyes away from, the appalling way in which Mugabe is destroying his country. I will certainly draw the right hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of the Foreign Secretary and the Minister responsible for African affairs, because there is undoubtedly great concern in the House about what is happening in Zimbabwe.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend tell us how much the House is having to pay for the recall of Parliament at the beginning of September? What has been the total increase in staff costs, and what has been the cost of the interruption of maintenance contracts? Before pushing out of court any assumption that we should look hard at the changed rules on the hours, will my right hon. Friend understand that even after altering the times of their sittings Select Committees are finding it increasingly difficult to operate effectively? If Standing Committees altered their sitting times, Committee members would find it almost impossible to be in the Chamber at question time. There are now too many incursions into MPs' working time, and there is a bogus assumption of improvisation. It will not do.
Mr. Hain: I very much value my hon. Friend's counsel and her views, and have done so for many years; but her point about Standing Committees having to sit at times

1077
that clash with Question Time does not follow, as Standing Committees can vary their hours in order to sit at times when there is no clash, even given a later start.
One of my duties, which I take very seriously, is to uphold the will of the House. Whether people disagree with it or not, the House voted for a change in the hours for the rest of this Parliament, and I do not think we can keep chopping and changing every few months. As I have said, however, I am open to suggestions about modification of the hours and other arrangements.
I will certainly try to find the figures relating to the cost of our return in September. They are not at my fingertips, but I will write to my hon. Friend when I have them.
Mr. Christopher Chope: What is the purpose of our sitting in September if the Government will not answer questions tabled for written answer on a priority basis on a named day during this period? I have tabled a number of such questions, including questions about the costs of policing the Labour party conference in Bournemouth and about the ravages of sudden oak death disease. Although that disease is apparently so important that it has attracted 80 Government inspectors who are going around gardens in England and Wales carrying out inspections, apparently the Government have no time to answer ordinary parliamentary questions about it. There is also the important question of whether the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will go to Bournemouth university and meet students to discuss top-up fees. Why can we not get answers to such questions during this important period?
Mr. Hain: That was a good try. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am about to do so.
The hon. Gentleman should note that there was no demand for the House to be recalled over the summer recess. Why? Because everyone knew that we were coming back at the earliest opportunity in September. Year after year, however, there have been almost ritual demands for a recall.
Regular statements have been made to the House by Ministers over these two weeks. Indeed, one will follow business questions. Ministers have been here to answer questions from the hon. Gentleman and any other Members who might wish to table them.
The public do not understand how we can be in recess for 13 weeks, as happened with the old model. This time we have been in recess for seven weeks. I should have thought that would be enough even for the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend give us an early opportunity to debate the need for Ministers to reply to letters from Members within a reasonable time? Will he, in particular, look into what happened to the letter I wrote on 12 June to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about my constituent Mrs. N. Bromley? I have
1078
written twice to the Prime Minister about the case, and have tabled a question which is being tossed around between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency. After more than three months, I have still not received a reply.
Mr. Hain: I am very conscious that my right hon. Friend would not have raised the matter in such a way had it not been of deep concern to him. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will wish to respond as soon as she can.
Mr. John Bercow: May we please have an urgent debate in Government time on intended new housing development in the south-east? Given that, on the back of the Milton Keynes-south midlands study, the Government want another 59,000 houses to be built around Aylesbury Vale between now and 2031, but have not even begun to think about how, when and by whom the necessary accompanying infrastructure can be provided, does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that a debate would provide a real opportunity for the airing of concerns about air pollution, traffic congestion, pressure on the health service and the implications for school places—all of which are matters of the most momentous significance to my Buckingham constituents?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has plenty of opportunities to apply for debates enabling him to raise matters affecting his constituents, but I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the health service, pollution, transport and a lot of other matters. The Government are investing more than ever before in all those "quality of life" issues and are dealing with them—by contrast with our predecessors, who cut and cut and cut, and made life intolerable for the hon. Gentleman's constituents, among others.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: As my right hon. Friend will know, we are approaching the party conference season. Is he aware that the Electoral Commission is conducting an inquiry into party funding? Will he allow a debate, as soon as possible after its report, on an issue that is important to all members of all parties?
Mr. Hain: I will certainly wish to do that, because as my hon. Friend says, the issue is important.
It is often wrongly assumed that this is some new development, but public funding for political parties is a well established part of our structure, particularly in the House. For example, funding for the Conservative party has trebled from £1.1 million to £3.3 million: that is the extent of its support in the House. The chairman of the Conservative party attacks the principle of public funding, but last year the Conservatives received £200,000 more from taxation—from public funds—than they were able to raise on their own.
Pete Wishart: When someone of the standing of Hans Blix says that the Government's belief in the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

1079
is akin to the mediaeval belief in witches, is it not time for an early debate on these elusive weapons, and on all the issues involved in the construction of what now appears to be a fantastic fable—that dodgy dossier?
Mr. Hain: When do we hear from the hon. Gentleman about the heinous crimes that Saddam Hussein committed against his people? Saddam is the only person whom I can think of in history—certainly in modern times—who killed I million Muslims. Indeed, at Halabja we are uncovering almost daily the unmarked graves of the 300,000 of his own citizens whom he killed during the Iran-Iraq war. The hon. Gentleman should be supporting the work of British soldiers in liberating the people of Iraq, instead of continually attacking the Government.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: May we have an early statement on the private treatment centres that will spring up in all parts of England? I think that Scotland is excluded because it turned them down. Is my right hon. Friend aware that nurses recruited to those centres will almost undoubtedly be poached from neighbouring national health service hospitals? What guarantees will exist to ensure that that does not happen, and will he also ensure that the unions involved in NHS hospitals are properly consulted before any of these centres are established?
Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has addressed these issues in the clearest possible terms. There is absolutely no question of poaching or of riding roughshod over local health service organisation provision; indeed, the entire initiative has been developed in consultation with, and by agreement with, local health authorities. I would have thought that my hon. Friend, who is a doughty fighter for the NHS and for people's rights, would welcome the fact that through these projects and initiatives, the Government are massively increasing capacity to enable urgent treatment for our constituents, some of whom desperately need hip operations, for example. NHS patients will receive that additional capacity free at the point of treatment—a vital principle that the Conservatives plan to demolish through charges, privatisation and private health insurance.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Before the recess, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a statement on the outcome of the common agricultural policy, and I requested then that we be able to debate the impact on many of our constituencies of that important outcome. Will the Leader of the House agree to that debate?
Mr. Hain: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the Secretary of State's attention.
Dr. Brian Iddon: I begin by declaring an interest, in that I am the patron of the Society of Registration Officers in England and Wales. The civil registration service has hardly changed since the 1830s, but it is just about to undergo a mini revolution as a result of the document published at the beginning of the summer entitled "Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change". I understand that that mini
1080
revolution will be launched via a regulatory reform order, which will probably be discussed Upstairs, rather than on the Floor of the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as this matter affects the lives of all of our constituents, such a debate should take place on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Hain: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work on behalf of civil registrars; he performs a very important role. As an enthusiastic supporter of this initiative, he will know that the Government are modernising the entire process to make it in tune with people's lives today. I shall certainly bear his request in mind.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Home Secretary, or perhaps one of the Law Officers, on the policing and judicial practice applied in the case of Mr. James Dowell, who found 15 youngsters vandalising his pond, and managed to detain three of them and force them to clear up the mess? He was subsequently arrested by no fewer than eight police officers for false imprisonment, received a sentence of 80 hours community service, and has been tagged for the next four months to make sure that he does not do it to them again. Would it not be good to get back to the time when the letters "PC" meant police constable, not political correctness?
Mr. Hain: I am obviously baffled by that case, but I shall certainly ensure that the Home Secretary knows about it. At least the citizen concerned was not sentenced to attend the proceedings of the Conservative party.
David Winnick: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when the Hunting Bill is significantly changed in the Lords, as it undoubtedly will be, the Parliament Act will definitely be used, so that we can have a ban on fox hunting in the lifetime of this Parliament? Is it not essential that the will of the elected House triumphs over a totally unrepresentative House of Lords, in which 92 hereditaries remain—for the time being?
Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality made clear on 21 March last year the Government's policy on the Parliament Act, and it has not changed. This House voted overwhelmingly for a ban on cruelty to animals, which the House of Lords will, I am sure, wish to respect. I am sure that matters will proceed and that we can reach a consensual outcome. My right hon. Friend has made the Government's position clear, and we stand by it.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: The Leader of the House will be aware of my constituents' great concern about continuing donations to IRA-Sinn Fein from America, a recent example of which was a donation by the Coca-Cola corporation. At the time of that donation, Mr. David Hill—who has been appointed as successor to Mr. Alastair Campbell at No. 10—worked for a public relations company, one of whose clients was the Coca-Cola corporation. May we have a statement to clarify the Government's position, whether the Prime

1081
Minister was aware of and approved of the current situation, and whether he agrees that donations to IRA-Sinn Fein by companies here or elsewhere are totally unacceptable, given its ongoing commitment to violence and its refusal to give up the machinery of terrorism in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will wish to take note of the hon. Gentleman's question.
Tony Wright: As my right hon. Friend rightly said, last week's Intelligence and Security Committee report nailed the lie that the Government had in some way doctored intelligence assessments. I refer him to a very important section of the report, which referred to a Joint Intelligence Committee assessment that was made in February, in the run-up to the war. It said that there was no intelligence-assessed link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda and terrorism, and that the collapse of that regime would heighten the terrorist risk to us. Do the Government intend, in the spirit of publishing dossiers, to publish that assessment, and will he give the House an opportunity to discuss it?
Mr. Hain: Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have dealt with this matter. The Government have never maintained that Iraq was involved with al-Qaeda in respect of the 11 September terrorist attack. However, we have always said that there was always a danger—we are beginning to see this happen—that Saddam Hussein's monstrous regime would link up with terrorists—[Interruption.] Of course, there was bound to be a danger that when the regime collapsed, different forces would seek to interpose themselves, as they have predictably done. But the real issue before the House was whether to leave Saddam in power, with his monstrous tyranny and ability to threaten the rest of the region and the rest of the world. We are proud that we did not duck that choice, and as a result Iraq and the rest of the world will be a better place in the months and years to come.
Mr. Peter Luff: May we have an early debate on today's report on gangmasters from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee? If time cannot be found for such a debate, could the Leader of the House at least ask the Secretary of State to respond urgently to that report? He will be aware that gangmasters provide crucial casual labour to growers and producers throughout the United Kingdom, but that many of them are ruthless and are guilty of the grossest exploitation. Moreover, much Treasury revenue is lost and people are often put at risk, as I myself know from a tragic railway accident of 7 July. The report is hard-hitting and makes clear recommendations, on which the Government need to act.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important matter, of which he has particular knowledge. I am sure that the Ministers concerned will
1082
want to act urgently on that report, and I shall certainly ensure that his question is drawn to their urgent attention.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Would the Leader of House consider having a debate on Royal Mail's intention to close down its air freight service at the Liverpool John Lennon airport on the grounds of an assessment based on faulty financial information? Is there a case for a general discussion of how public interest companies interpret their commercial freedom in relation to Government policy?
Mr. Hain: I think that we had a debate on those matters shortly before the recess, but my hon. Friend raises an important issue, which will no doubt be of concern to her constituents. I will ensure that the appropriate Minister—and, indeed, Royal Mail—is made aware of her question.
John Thurso: In the light of the motion carried in the Scottish Parliament on the detention of children at Dungavel and the deep concern expressed by members of the church and nation committee of the Church of Scotland, will the Leader of the House consider providing us with an opportunity to debate the matter as soon as practically possible? Is he aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House regard the detention of children as the unacceptable face of Scotland in the 21st century?
Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman may know, that serious matter of great concern has been raised in Scottish questions. I am sure that the appropriate Ministers will note with great seriousness the hon. Gentleman's question.
Ms Gisela Stuart: I welcome last week's announcement that, as part of the White Paper discussions on the draft constitution, the Special Standing Committee will continue to meet during the intergovernmental conference debates. However, should the draft be accepted as it stands, given that some provisions have significant implications for the workings of Parliament? Will the Leader of the House find time in the coming months for a debate on the Floor of the House on the specific provisions that affect the workings of Parliament?
Mr. Hain: I am sure that that will be necessary at some point. I am in communication with the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee and others who are considering these matters. I think that my hon. Friend refers to the important advance for democracy represented by the new draft constitution, according to which national Parliaments, including our own House of Commons, will have the ability to vet any new proposals from the European Commission to assess whether they should be considered at the Brussels level or remain at the nation state level. That is an important step forward for democratic accountability between Europe and its member states. My hon. Friend played an important part in achieving it, but implementation in the House is ultimately a matter for the House.
Mr. Keith Simpson: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention back to the points made

1083
by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others about pension provisions for our staff' He gave the impression that the concerns have somehow been exaggerated or put up, but I suggest that that is entirely erroneous. Many members of our staff are very worried.
The Leader of the House gave the impression that his door is always open, but he needs to be more proactive than that. We will be away for about three weeks and I suggest that he calls a meeting, perhaps with the director of finance and others, as soon as possible to clear up any of our staffs misunderstandings and to give them some guarantee about their future and their pensions.
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I sought merely to dismiss the concerns. On the contrary, those concerns—I have heard about some of them—are legitimate. The Speaker's Advisory Panel discussed the matter last week and is well seized of the importance of ensuring that everything proceeds smoothly and that staff's concerns are listened to. I shall obviously keep a beady eye on that process on behalf of the House, and I shall report back or answer further questions in the future when the opportunity arises. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter again.
Llew Smith: I am sure that the Leader of the House will join me in welcoming the outcome of the referendum in Sweden a few days ago, and I am sure that he, like myself, would want to ensure that, if the UK has a referendum on the euro, the UK electorate are as well informed as the Swedish people. Could we therefore have a debate not only on the single currency, but specifically on article 107? If it became law, it would become illegal for Parliament, the Assembly or local authorities to influence the decision makers, who are neither elected nor accountable, but merely a group of bankers.
Mr. Hain: The Swedish referendum on the euro was a matter for Swedes and the British referendum, if and when it comes, is a matter for Britons. We will do things in our own way according to the route map laid out by the Chancellor on 9 June, which will see increasing convergence between the British and eurozone economies. If, at the end of that process, the economic circumstances have fallen into place, we will indeed call a referendum and I am sure that we will win it.
Mr. George Osborne: That route map set out by the Chancellor included a roadshow. I cannot believe that the Leader of the House, as one of the Government's leading euro enthusiasts, has not been invited to take part, so can he tell us how many events he has participated in since the roadshow was launched? That would scotch rumours that the roadshow does not exist.
Mr. Hain: The Treasury has already done 55 presentations around the country on the euro. I myself chaired—[Interruption.] Well, I was asked a question, and I am about to give the answer. I chaired a meeting of the Wales euro preparation committee in July—[Interruption.] Indeed, and I am going to chair another meeting of that committee next week. The truth is that
1084
this is a matter of live debate. The Treasury is consulting extensively around the country. In the end, Opposition Members can laugh and jeer, but their policy is to deprive the British people of the opportunity to vote on joining the euro, even if it is in our economic interest or the interest of our jobs and prosperity to do so. They all say "no"—never, ever—dogmatically and on principle. That is not a common-sense position. Ours is the sensible position: to prepare and decide when the economic circumstances are correct.
Mr. Tom Harris: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the New Testament, specifically to Luke, chapter 15, verse 7:
"I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."?
As someone who voted in favour of the reforms to the sitting hours of the House, I have had more than enough time to repent and reflect on my mistake. I heard what my right hon. Friend said about the decision of House applying for the rest of this Parliament, but the House has the right to change its mind. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would, given the opportunity, seek to redress the damage. When will I have an opportunity to atone for my sin?
Mr. Hain: There are sinners and saints on both sides of the argument. I shall repeat a reply that I gave earlier: if my hon. Friend has any specific suggestions about adjusting or improving the position, my door is open. That is how to move forward, but I repeat that the House took a decision for the rest of this Parliament. Such decisions should not be lightly swept aside. They should be respected and it is my duty to respect them.
Andrew George: Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that we shall have an adequate opportunity properly to scrutinise regulations as they go through the House? I refer to the Animal By-Products Regulations 2003, which my right hon. Friends and I prayed against on 9 June this year and was debated in Committee this Monday. The Minister said that the
"40-day period has passed so annulment is not possible."—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 15 September 2003; c. 14.]
I protested to the Chairman at the time that it is not within my gift to determine the date when these matters are debated. This is either an example of incompetence by the Government's business managers, or a cynical method of trying to manipulate the procedures of the House to avoid proper scrutiny. Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that we shall have timely and proper scrutiny of regulations as they pass through the House?
Mr. Hain: It is neither cynical—who would ever accuse business managers of being cynical—nor incompetent. I will look into the matter and I will write to the hon. Gentleman, but I reject the suggestion of ulterior motives that he ascribes to the episode.
Mr. David Chaytor: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the third report of the Health Committee, which was published earlier this summer, on the subject of sexual health. The report begins with a

1085
significant quotation from Dr. Helen Lacey, who is the consultant in charge of the sexual health clinic at Fairfield hospital in my constituency. She is concerned about the current crisis in sexual health and she tells me that my constituency has seen a 300 per cent. increase in the occurrence of certain sexually transmitted infections in the past four years. The burden of that increase often falls on vulnerable young women and is frequently caused by the reluctance of young people, parents and teachers to discuss those issues, so does my right hon. Friend agree that this House could set an example by holding a debate on the Committee's report at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Hain: That is an important issue and I will look into my hon. Friend's request. I know of the fine work that is done in his constituency. We are all concerned about the matter, and I am grateful that he has raised it.

Constitutional Reforms
1.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State fur Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): With permission, I wish to repeat a statement made in the other place today by my noble Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton about further reforms to the House of Lords, and on the office of Lord Chancellor.
The Government are today publishing two consultation papers on the next steps on House of Lords reform; and on the functions of the Lord Chancellor. Copies of both papers are available in the Vote Office. The papers form another significant part of the present phase of constitutional reform on which the Government embarked last summer, with the creation of a Department for Constitutional Affairs to take overall responsibility for the issues.
May I begin by apologising to the House because a report of the proposals appeared in a Sunday newspaper? I can assure the House that no one in my Department was authorised to speak to the press on the subject. It has always been the Government's intention to ensure that Parliament should hear first about the proposals.
I shall deal first with our proposals for further reform of the House of Lords. Last February, both Houses voted on the range of options for the composition of the second Chamber proposed by the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. Their lordships voted three to one in favour of an appointed House. In this House, there was no majority for any of the options. The Joint Committee, in its second report published on 9 May, reflected on the outcome of the parliamentary votes and concluded that
"simply to maintain the status quo"
in respect of composition was undesirable. The Government agree.
In those circumstances, we intend to make progress where we can. The Government therefore propose further reforms to ensure that we have a stable and sustainable House of Lords. It was never our intention that the remaining hereditary peers should remain members of the House of Lords for ever. When the interim arrangement was reached, as well as the immediate benefit of the agreement, we accepted the argument that the presence of the remaining hereditary peers would act as an incentive to further reform. That has not happened: there is no clear consensus in Parliament on the way forward. So the context for reform has clearly and significantly changed. The circumstances that gave rise to the original arrangement over the remaining hereditary peers no longer apply. The solution, which the remaining hereditary peers were there to help seek, is no longer available. The Government must act, and act decisively, to bring about stability and sustainability.
It is for the Government to act, but it is for Parliament to decide. It will be for Parliament as a whole to decide on the removal of the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and to vote. Therefore, the next step of our reform programme will be to introduce legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to remove the right o the remaining 92 hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, thus completing that element of the reform process on which we embarked in 1997.

1087
In moving on from the current arrangement, the Government wish to pay tribute to the contribution that those 92 peers make to the other place. Many of them are among its most active and effective members. The Government hope that Parliament might continue to benefit from the contribution of at least some of them should they be nominated as life peers in the future.
We shall set up a statutory commission to select and oversee appointments that are made to the House of Lords. It will build on the present non-statutory Appointments Commission, which itself represented a significant voluntary relinquishing by the Prime Minister of his powers of patronage. The statutory commission will be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen in response to an address from Parliament. The three major parties in this House and the Cross-Bench peers will be directly represented on it, together with a number of members selected in accordance with the principles of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in an open selection process. The Government will discuss with the Opposition parties how they might best be involved in the selection process. The Commission's funding and accountability arrangements will maximise its independence from the Government. The consultation document asks for views on various detailed aspects of those arrangements.
We propose that the functions of the commission will be threefold. First, it will decide on the number and timing of new appointments to the House of Lords. This will be a massive—and voluntary—diminution in the Prime Minister's influence over the membership of the Second Chamber. In making its decisions in relation to political appointments, the commission would be subject to two main guidelines. They are that the Government of the day should not have an overall majority in the Lords; and that appointments for the parties should have regard to the outcome of the previous general election. The commission will also be expected to provide that appointments to the Cross Benches should average 20 per cent. of appointments over the lifetime of a Parliament. The Commission's second function would be to nominate the non-party peers, and thirdly, it would vet the nominations for party peers for propriety.
In the meantime, the existing non-statutory Appointments Commission will continue its work, of which the Prime Minister has already expressed the Government's appreciation. The Prime Minister will invite it to make recommendations for new non-party peers until the new statutory commission is in place.
We also propose to bring the rules for disqualification from membership of the House of Lords, in respect of detention following conviction for an offence, into line with those for the House of Commons. We do not believe that the difference of treatment can any longer be justified. We therefore propose that in the future such peers will forfeit their membership of the House of Lords exactly as they would if they were MPs. In addition, they will be deprived of their peerage. The provision will have retrospective effect. Parliament is a privilege, not a possession. Such peers will, of course, be free to seek renewed membership of the second Chamber, by applying to the Appointments Commission or their party, as relevant, for nomination, just as former MPs can seek re-election.
1088
We propose that life peers, like hereditary peers before them, should in future be able to resign their peerages and membership of the House of Lords. That is a fairer and more reasonable arrangement that will allow those who feel they wish to move on and no longer sit in the second Chamber the opportunity to do so.
Nothing in the proposals relates to the powers of the House of Lords. We are not proposing any extension of the role of the second Chamber. For example, the traditional role of the Lords in relation to Finance Bills is clear and works well, its powers being constrained by the Parliament Act 1911 and Commons financial privilege established by resolutions in the 17th century. I am sure their lordships would not seek to extend their powers, for example in respect of Supply. The House of Commons should and must remain pre-eminent in our constitutional arrangements.
On further reform of the House of Lords, we will continue to look for a way forward. We will discuss any possible next steps with the current Joint Committee and how it can contribute.
Taken together, the changes amount to a substantial set of reforms to the House of Lords. When added to our previously announced decisions to set up a separate supreme court, and to remove the office of Lord Chancellor, thus leading to reform of the office of Speaker, they will create a House that is significantly different from that which currently exists.
The Government are also publishing today a consultation paper on the reform of the office of Lord Chancellor. Work to bring to an end the multiple roles of the Lord Chancellor is already well advanced. The Secretary of State is formally inviting views on the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage, his visitatorial responsibilities and other functions relating to specific charities, schools and other institutions.
The proposals the Government announce today are part of the programme of constitutional reforms that we have been pursuing since 1997. They will contribute to the further strengthening of Parliament. Alongside our earlier reforms of devolution to Scotland and Wales, the Human Rights Act 1998 and freedom of information, they will take their place in the shaping of our nation, to make the institutions of the state fit and responsive to the demands of our citizens in the modern world.
Mr. William Cash: I thank the Minister for making that statement, but I regret that it comes a week after its content appeared in The Sunday Times. That blatantly contravenes your continual rulings, Mr. Speaker, that Parliament should be told first. Indeed, I received my advance copy at only 11.45 this morning, and I had to ask for it. That is no way for a so-called Department for Constitutional Affairs to conduct its business. It began its life floundering in a farce and now treats the House with contempt. Anyone would think that the constitution of this country was the personal chattel of the Prime Minister and his cronies.
The statement reeks of dishonesty. It pretends that the Government are still seeking long-term reform and, in the words of the Secretary of State in his foreword, are looking to
"shape a consensus to make the second chamber more legitimate and more representative of our society."

1089
In fact, they are engaged in short-term political gerrymandering and cynical political arithmetic. No one believes what the Government say anymore. The more people see, the less credible the Government become.
The Government are not interested in delivering genuine reform. They have ignored the royal commission and pre-empted the Joint Committee of both Houses. It appears that the Joint Committee was not even consulted. The future of hereditary peers is not the issue. That was dealt with by Act of Parliament in 1999. No one has the right to sit in the House of Lords by virtue of hereditary peerage alone. It is absurd for the Secretary of State to call for consensus in his foreword to the consultation paper, when the Minister in his statement just now stated that there was "clearly no consensus" in Parliament.
The fundamental question facing Parliament is indeed the future of the House of Lords, its authority and the authority of the House as a whole. The Government's objective in the Labour party submission was intended to ensure that the House of Lords remains a
"distinctive, representative and independent chamber".
That is not what this consultation paper is about. No legislation can be introduced affecting the other place without opening questions that go further than the framework of that Bill. In this House we will face a choice.
The issue is the accountability of the Government to Parliament, and whether the Prime Minister will gain further control over the constitution, adding to his disgraceful refusal to give the British people a referendum on the European constitution. The Minister and the Secretary of State in the other place have said that Parliament must decide about the measures before it. We need to know from the Minister whether the Government will give the House of Commons a free vote on the Bill that they propose to introduce following this statement, and whether they will come clean on whether their real intention is to remove enough peers who would take the Government to the Parliament Act on an amendment for a referendum on the European constitution. That is the arithmetic.
After all, the Prime Minister has said that, for him, the European constitution is even more important than Iraq. This is a political statement, made by one party for one party. It is not constitutional reform. Principle has been abandoned. The Cook-Maclennan talks have been betrayed. This is not a step towards democracy but a fundamental shift away from it.
The Opposition have made our position clear in favour of more democracy and an elected House of Lords. The proposal for 80:20 was lost in the House by a mere three votes. These proposed reforms treat that vote with contempt.
As regards the other place, its legitimate expectations in 1999—when many of its Members agreed to withdraw, on the basis that 92 hereditary peers would remain under a parliamentary concession and not by hereditary right—have been disgracefully dishonoured.
Opposition Members do not believe that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—who deals in so many ways with how we are governed—should be
1090
in the other place. He should be in this House, not merely represented in the House of Commons by a junior bag-carrier who will simply do the bidding of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister.
Why has the matter suddenly become so important? Most people in the country probably think that the other place works well. Is that not because the other place has shown its independence and won respect and authority, for example over issues such as trial by jury, media ownership, the snoopers charter and the fair conduct of justice?
Is it perhaps that the Prime Minister wants to remove 20 per cent. of the non-governmental peers? Is the Prime Minister arguing that the proper and legitimate amendments from the other place are regarded as abnormal obstruction of the Government's legislative programme? If so, I challenge the Secretary of State and the Minister to say so.
The Prime Minister is as dangerous as he is arrogant, and his Secretary of State is implementing this dishonest plan in defiance of principle. It is a cynical move by the Prime Minister, when he is in deep trouble, to draw attention away from his difficulties. The Government treat the issue of constitutional reform and their loss of votes in the other place as though Parliament had no right to interfere in their Bills or their plans. I remind the House that in 40 per cent. of the Divisions that they have lost this year in the other place, less than half of the Government's own peers supported them. The Government simply failed to convince the House. Indeed, the Government have lost 51 Divisions this year—the highest number since the 1970s. However, they would have lost only 10 if the hereditary peers were removed. That is the real reason for the policy.
What of the statutory appointments commission? We welcome it in principle, but we have heard about it for six years. When precisely will it be enacted? The Government no longer talk of broad parity with the main Opposition party but now only of
"not having an overall majority in the House".
Does that not mean that the Government will have a majority over the two main Opposition parties combined?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: That is the plan.
Mr. Cash: Indeed, that is the plan. It is the Prime Minister's plan as well.
As to the reform of the office of the Lord Chancellor, we discussed the matter when the previous statement was made, and we will debate it in future. However, one thing is clear. As the consultation paper states,
"the Lord Chancellor is after the Prime Minister the principle source of Ministerial advice to the Queen."
He serves the same function in respect of the Cabinet on all matters of constitutional importance. The removal of the office of the Lord Chancellor removes from the Cabinet historical and constitutional weight and authority when it comes to advice on constitutional affairs and maintaining the independence of the judiciary. The office has a degree of independence that the Prime Minister clearly finds impossible to reconcile with his obsession with his own power and control.

1091
This Government have lost credibility. The Prime Minister does not want a democratic House of Lords but an appointed House of Lords that he can ignore. He dare not say so, but that is what these proposals mean. Constitutional reform should be in the long-term national interest, not what these proposals represent—a short-term fix. We shall oppose them for the shoddy manoeuvre that they represent.
Mr. Leslie: It is now clear that the Opposition support keeping hereditary peers in the second Chamber. That is disgraceful, and does no credit to the House of Lords. It is about time that we took steps to remove the remaining 92 peers who are there by virtue of their birth, and that is exactly what we intend to do.
Clearly, we have to respond to the situation caused by the votes in February, when no consensus emerged from Parliament. The Conservative majority in the other place voted by three to one in favour of an appointed second Chamber. No consensus emerged in the House of Commons. We need to move forward, where we can, to put the other place on a stable and sustainable footing. We can do that by removing the hereditaries, because the status quo is not desirable.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of specific matters, and I shall investigate the amount of notice that he was given of the statement. It is entirely laudable that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should seek to relinquish many of the powers of patronage that his office traditionally has held, in terms of the timing and numbers of appointments to the House of Lords, and in terms of the establishment of a statutory appointments commission. I am glad that the Opposition welcomed that element of the statement, but the hon. Gentleman then said that they will oppose the legislation that we intend to bring forward when parliamentary time allows.
The hon. Gentleman took all of three minutes to turn the issue into a European conspiracy; he feels that it is all to do with some European constitutional referendum, which reflects interestingly on the current state of the Conservative party. Abolishing the hereditary peerage is the right thing to do. Ensuring that the House of Commons has pre-eminence is the right thing to do. In the face of the lack of consensus, we need to make progress, and that is exactly what the Government will do.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The statement and the consultation paper are economical with the truth. The Minister has just said that there was clearly no consensus in Parliament on the way forward. That is only partly true; there is a consensus in this House, although there may not be consensus between the two Houses.
The Minister has just said that this House must remain pre-eminent. There is a majority in the Chamber for a reformed second Chamber to be elected—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, there isn't."] There is.
The announcement is a double betrayal. First, it breaks the manifesto promises on which Labour Members were elected on two occasions and, secondly, it tears up the agreement that the hereditary peers would be removed only when the full reform package was in place. Liberal Democrats will thus support the removal
1092
of the remaining hereditary peers only when the full package is put before this House, and when it is accompanied by the promised introduction of elected Members to make the second Chamber "more democratic and representative"—words that every Labour Member signed up to.
The Prime Minister clearly regards the votes of Members of this House as unimportant. On 4 February, the majority of Members of the House—332, or more than half—voted for a majority of Members of the other place to be elected. They did not all go into the same Lobby at once, but that was their view.
The Minister is not listening to me as his colleagues are whispering to him, but he is an honourable man and he will remember that he supported the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor in voting for an all-appointed House. That option was substantially rejected—by 78 votes—so does he still think that the votes of the House of Commons should be pre-eminent? If so, the option that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are currently proposing directly negates what the House voted for.
Every Labour Member, at two elections, supported a manifesto commitment to create a more democratic and representative second Chamber. If they vote for the Bill that is being suggested for the next Session, they will both be reneging on that promise to the electorate and deliberately ignoring the votes of this House on 4 February.
The Minister has just said that he wants stability and sustainability. Pull the other one! There is nothing sustainable about his proposition.
We now refer to the Department for Constitutional Affairs as "DECAF". It is living up to its name. The real radical reform originally intended by Labour Members and their Government has been sucked out of it and neither House will accept this unpalatable mess.
Mr. Leslie: What interesting mathematics the hon. Gentleman proposes. He says that, supposedly, there is consensus in this Chamber for an elected second Chamber. I do not know which version of Hansard he has been reading, but my tally of the votes suggests that only 272 hon. Members were in favour while 289 were against, which means that the House rejected the option of an elected second Chamber. It is clear that there was no consensus in this House on the way forward.
In the face of Parliament's decisions, what should the Government do? We need to make progress where we can. For the Liberal Democrats, of all parties, to find themselves in the ridiculous situation of supporting the retention of hereditary peers in the second Chamber is an outrage. I do not understand how they can call themselves Liberal Democrats. We need to abolish the remaining hereditary peers. That is what most ordinary people would demand.
It is important to underline the fact that the Government are taking steps to fulfil our manifesto commitments. We want a more legitimate and representative second Chamber. We need to move forward where we can. We are also proposing a statutory appointments commission. Those are steps

1093
forward. Of course, the door remains open for further reform, but we need to take opportunities, while we can, to remove undesirable elements of the status quo.
Mr. Robin Cook: My hon. Friend is a fair-minded man, so he will confirm that all the Government's previous proposals for reform of the Lords involved the abolition of hereditary peers. He will also admit that what distinguishes the package that he has just announced is that it is the first time that the Government have presented proposals for reform that do not include provision for any Member of the second Chamber to be elected by the British public.
May I warn my hon. Friend against the delusion that an independent commission will make appointments popular? During the two years when I was Leader of the House, we begged the Appointments Commission not to come up with any more names because when it did there was a public relations disaster. Does he understand that the reason for that unpopularity is that the British people find it offensive that they have no say on who sits in a Chamber that is passing laws on them?
On my hon. Friend's arithmetic, as he is a fair-minded man, will he also accept that the proposal for an all-appointed House got 235 votes and was rejected by 323 votes? That was a somewhat larger majority than I heard him mention a minute ago. Is not it the case that the all-appointed option received the fewest votes in the House and had the biggest majority against it? I confess that I am rather confused, so can my hon. Friend remind me why we consulted the House of Commons if we intended to go ahead with the measure that was least popular among Members of Parliament?
Mr. Leslie: My right hon. Friend was intimately involved in the decisions leading up to the votes last February. Although, as he is aware, no consensus emerged for an all-appointed second Chamber, an all-elected second Chamber or, indeed, any element of election in the second Chamber, it is clear that we must have regard to where we are now and what we can do next. We could leave the hereditaries in the second Chamber in perpetuity or we can take steps to remove that anomaly—that anachronism—and I believe that that is the right thing to do.
My right hon. Friend is correct to suggest that, at present, we do not propose to make changes in composition. The Government are not saying that this is the final stage of reform, but we must be conscious of the fact that progress has to be made and that is what we want to do. Appointments will need to be a feature for the time being, so the statutory appointments commission is a step towards greater legitimacy for those who sit in the second Chamber. That proposal was in our manifesto and my right hon. Friend was involved in its authorship.
Mr. William Hague: I accept that there was no consensus on Lords reform in this Chamber in February, but was that not largely due to the decision of the Prime Minister and some members of the Cabinet to abrogate all their previous commitments for a more democratic upper House? Has not that long-standing Labour commitment formally come to an end
1094
today? That commitment had lived on—there was even a commitment to the Wakeham report in the last Labour manifesto—but has not it come to a formal end with the words of the Leader of the House a few days ago that there would be a democratic method of appointment? Will the Minister tell his right hon. Friend that we have a word in the English language for "democratic method of appointment"? It is "elections". In the absence of elections to the upper House, will not we be left with a weaker upper Chamber in a weaker Parliament? In those circumstances, is not it ludicrous to speak of an overall reduction in the influence of the Prime Minister of the day?
Mr. Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman seeks to imply that the result of the vote in February was all the Prime Minister's doing. However, as he knows, there was a free vote. He suggests that we should have an all-elected or partially elected second Chamber. In that case, why did the Conservatives in the other House vote by an overwhelming majority for a fully appointed second Chamber? How does he propose to reach a consensus, to find a result, when members of his party in the other House are voting for appointment? We must have regard to the outcome of those votes and ensure that we can take steps forward. For the Conservatives to suggest that they want an elected element when their colleagues in the other place would prevent that very thing is to look in both directions.
Tony Wright: Is what my hon. Friend now proposes intended as an interim proposal? If so, how long will the interim period be? If it is only an interim proposal, what steps is he taking to put in hand the further reforms that he refers to and what machinery does he intend to invent for that purpose? May I ask him about a specific point? Almost everyone who has commented on Lords reform, from the royal commission onwards, has said that, even if we are just doing some tidying up, one thing that we need to do is to break the link between service in a second legislative chamber and the honours system. Will the proposals that he now offers us break that link?
Mr. Leslie: On the last point that my hon. Friend makes, the consultation document raises the issue of the link between the peerage and membership of the second Chamber, and we feel that that issue would perhaps merit investigation, but not until we find a consensus about composition. Indeed, that is precisely the point of his first question. We feel that it will eventually be possible to find some way through on the question of composition. We cannot say how long that will take, not least because of the muddled results that we had when Parliament voted on this issue. We want to create a stable second Chamber for the time being and to discuss with the Joint Committee the next steps that might lie ahead, and I look forward to those discussions.
Sir George Young: Can the Minister confirm whether a direct consequence of the Bill that he has proposed today is that the Government will find it easier to get contentious legislation through the second Chamber? If that is the case, how could he tell the House in his statement that the proposals will contribute to the further strengthening of Parliament?
Mr. Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman was a Secretary of State in an Administration who had an overall majority in both Houses of Parliament for 18 years, so for the consultation document to say that we no longer feel that it is right for any Government to have an overall majority in the second Chamber is the right way forward. We feel that that is the best way to progress, to ensure that we have balance and a fair system in the second Chamber. This is certainly nothing about ensuring that we have our business pushed through in any different way. The right hon. Gentleman should realise that, if that were the case, we would copy the previous Conservative Administration, but we reject the approach that they enjoyed for such a long time.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As someone who served on the royal commission for a year, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on a statement that fulfils the Labour party manifesto commitment on the Wakeham report? What my hon. Friend has announced is fulfilment of the spirit and a large part of the letter of the report—namely, the establishment of a statutory appointments commission that is required to take account of the votes cast at the previous general election and the removal of patronage from the Prime Minister, plus the abolition of the 92 hereditaries. It is an extremely sensible statement; the Government deserve credit for it; and it is not in the least surprising that, when the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was rejected at the last election, the Government's commitment in beating him is now being carried out.
Mr. Leslie: May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and, indeed, Opposition Members for their role on the royal commission? He is right to say that we are taking steps to implement our manifesto commitments. Of course, it is a shame that we could not reach consensus in the House of Commons on the question of composition, but it is right to remove the hereditaries from the second Chamber and to establish a statutory appointments commission. How interesting it is to hear the disappointing response from Opposition Members, who will apparently oppose removing the hereditary principle from the second Chamber.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Why does not the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs understand that constitutions—even our unwritten one—have checks and balances, and that, when they are changed, the checks and balances have to be either maintained or replaced? He has already ignored the views of the judges that his proposals provide no means at Cabinet level to assert judicial independence. He now proposes to ignore the views of all the people in the country who have seen the Lords act as a check on an over-powerful Government and do not want the House of Lords to be changed, unless it is changed in a way that maintains that authority and that ability to challenge the Government.
Mr. Leslie: I do not quite know which document the right hon. Gentleman has been reading. The Government wish to see not only a second Chamber with no overall Government majority, but an appointments commission that will determine the
1096
timing and number of those appointed in that manner. The document also spells out the fact that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs should have a role in protecting judicial independence. It is not true that the Government somehow want to blur the lines between the different branches of the constitution. Quite the contrary— we seek the proper separation of powers between the judiciary, the Executive and the legislature.
Mr. Stuart Bell: May I direct the House's attention to the constitutional reform document in relation to the office of the Lord Chancellor, and say, as Second Church Estates Commissioner, that the Church welcomes the consultation document in relation to ecclesiastical appointments, parochial appointments, the Royal Peculiars and other ecclesiastical functions? The Church welcomes the proposals in relation to a disengagement of the Church from the state, rather than disestablishment, but may I ask the Minister to confirm that what we seek in relation to Church appointments is to give back to the Church what rightly belongs to it and to maintain for the state that which it is appropriate for the state to maintain?
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the consultation document on the office of the Lord Chancellor contains no proposals on disestablishment, but there are interesting tracts on ecclesiastical patronage, visitatorial rights, the Royal Peculiars and the chapels royal, which I know all hon. Members will want to look at in much more detail. There are questions about whether Ministers or perhaps the Church of England would be best placed to undertake some of those functions, and we will not allow some of those details to go without proper scrutiny and proper attention.
Mr. Edward Garnier: May I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that, contrary to what he said at the outset of his answers, there is not a Conservative majority in the other place? Will he tell us what he proposes to do beyond reciting the apology that he gave at the beginning of his statement? Does he intend to look into how that statement came to be published in the newspapers some days ago? Has he considered whether the element of retrospection is complicit with the European Convention? How will the proposals improve Parliament's ability to hold the Executive to account?
Mr. Leslie: I do not know where the hon. and learned Gentleman's arithmetic comes from. If he looks back at the numbers in the different parties, he will see that the Conservative party is by far the most overwhelming party in the second Chamber.
As for the question about the reports in Sunday newspapers, as I said in my statement, they were certainly not authorised and we are investigating that matter. However, as with many issues, particularly those that are as large as this, it is not surprising that things leak out, but I deplore such leaks and I certainly hope that we can continue to make statements to Parliament first.

1097
It is right that we have the proper separation of powers and proper scrutiny of legislation, and I believe that the proposed measures will aid that in many different ways.
Joyce Quin: May I urge my hon. Friend to open wider the door to further reform, given not only that an all-appointed House was the least popular option in this House, but that the results of the earlier consultation showed strong public support for a greater elected element? May I also ask my hon. Friend, given the divisions on this issue that undoubtedly exist across the House, whether there will be a free vote?
Mr. Leslie: We do not intend to introduce legislation that includes matters on composition precisely because we had the free votes that took place last February, when no consensus emerged. We had two choices to make: to do nothing and continue with the status quo, or to take steps to continue to make progress on reform, to remove the hereditaries and to introduce a statutory appointments commission. That is indeed what the legislation will propose.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister accept that documents that suggest that the Anglican Church existed before the Reformation hardly fill one with confidence about the accuracy of their contents? Can he name any second Chamber anywhere in the world that has more accumulated expertise, experience or ability to hold the Government to account than the House of Lords? As he said that the new House of Lords will be significantly different, how can it be significantly better?
Mr. Leslie: It can be significantly better if 92 of its Members are not there by virtue of their birthright. The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that if we remove those people who were there by virtue of that automatic ticket of inheritance, we somehow reduce the expertise or independence of mind of the second Chamber. He is mistaken in that. I believe that we can have a contemporary chamber that is legitimate and that can be more representative. If he scrutinises the proposals in the document with more care, perhaps he will find himself agreeing with it.
Richard Burden: My hon. Friend the Minister said that the Government intend to create a stable and sustainable upper House. By that, I take it that they intend to make stable and sustainable an all-appointed House, which, as has already been observed, was the least popular option. I stood on a manifesto that called for the upper House not only to be more representative but more democratic. I for one do not approach manifestos on a pick-and-mix basis. Will he therefore tell me what opportunity I will have, as a Labour Member of Parliament, to vote for a more democratic upper House if I am to be denied the chance this time to vote for any form of election?
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend must realise that the votes that took place last February changed the landscape
1098
significantly in a number of different ways. I believe that it is still possible, however, to move towards greater legitimacy for the second Chamber. The abolition of the hereditaries, an independent statutory appointments commission and making sure that those appointments reflect the shares of the votes cast of the previous general election, are a step towards a more democratic second Chamber. We do not close the door to future considerations on composition. It is just the next stage, not the final stage, but we must make progress while we can. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that we live in the real world and that we must be pragmatic about the progress that we can make, particularly given the lack of consensus that emerged in those February votes.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Does the Minister accept that this document does nothing to make the House of Lords more democratic?
Mr. Leslie: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), I believe that there are a number of ways in which greater legitimacy can be achieved for the second Chamber if we evolve from a hereditary to a more contemporary chamber. That is a step towards a more democratic House of Lords. If we remove hereditaries, we create a more legitimate Chamber. If the statutory appointments commission can reflect the shares of the votes cast or seats won at the previous general election, that, too, is a step towards a more democratic second Chamber. I accept, however, that hon. Members will have different views about it. It is precisely because there was no resolution in the votes in the House of Commons on this matter that we are where we are. I therefore believe that we must make those steps forward where we can.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Can my hon. Friend explain why he thinks that he can make progress with the proposals put to us today for the reform of the House of Lords when his proposal is the one that was most heavily defeated in this House?
Mr. Leslie: I hope that I have been clear in expressing the Government's views on future considerations on composition. We do not close the door to future decisions on how the Second Chamber should be composed. Indeed, we will discuss with the Joint Committee whether we can find a consensus and perhaps move forward. However, it was evident back in February, as all hon. Members will recall, that there was no consensus, and we hear arguments on both sides. Are we to do nothing, or are we to remove the hereditary peers and create a statutory appointments commission while we can, and try to reach a final stage at a later date?
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Everybody knows that things did not pan out in February quite as had been intended, including those who may have opposed or supported an all-elected Chamber. That was partly because there were so many votes on offer, and a good number of people for whom this is not the most important issue in the world got somewhat confused between all the options. What the Government now propose is a take-it-or-leave-it single option. Why do the Government not offer three or four options—such as an

1099
all-elected, largely elected or all-appointed Chamber—and put it to the vote? The Minister and the Government will thereby see that there is overwhelming support in this Chamber for a largely elected House. If the Government do not do that, will not the public be able to see that that side of the Chamber, or at least the Government seeking to lead that side of the Chamber, has now concluded that it does not want any kind of democracy in the second Chamber, and that this side of the Chamber offers the only way in which the public, who want it, can get it?
Mr. Leslie: I do not wish to give a history lesson to the hon. Gentleman, but back in February, the Joint Committee proposed seven options. Indeed, there was also an option on a unicameral second Chamber, which was defeated. An all-appointed second Chamber was defeated, an all-elected chamber was defeated, 20 per cent. elected was defeated, 80 per cent. elected was defeated, 40 per cent. elected was defeated, 60 per cent. elected was defeated and 50 per cent. elected was defeated. There was therefore no consensus at that time. Those options were chosen by the Joint Committee, members of which come both from this House and the second Chamber. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the Government to respond in some way to that situation, bringing forward those reforms that are necessary and that can be achieved.
Mr. George Foulkes: May I congratulate my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] May I congratulate him on coming up with a solution that maintains the primacy of this elected House of Commons and gets rid of the last vestiges of power of the descendants of robber barons? Will he give me two assurances? First, will the statutory appointments commission be required to take account of geographical representation, particularly Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Secondly—[Interruption.] I am happy to stay here. Notwithstanding the great improvement in the composition of the second Chamber, will he assure me that we will not give it any more powers to scrutinise Finance Bills?
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is clearly very popular in the Chamber, and I am glad that he provoked such a welcome to his question. I agree, as do both sides of the House—at least there is some consensus on this point—that the House of Commons should be supreme and that the elected Chamber should have primacy. When it comes to composition, however, we still have no consensus. On the statutory appointments commission and whether it would have regard to the make-up of society, the consultation paper proposes that one option could be for it to consider not just issues such as the balance of men and women, ethnicity and so forth but the geographic representation of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. On his second point, I reaffirm the important principle that the House of Commons should have supremacy on financial matters. The privileges that we have had are well and long established, and I know that the other place will not wish to interfere with those important principles.
John Thurso: Is the Minister aware that for a great many of us
1100
who are genuinely and fully committed to reform of the other place, this proposal is a fudge that is the worst of all worlds? The core question is the legitimacy of the other place. As long as we can say that it is unelected and therefore illegitimate, it will simply not work. Will he not understand that there is only one valid appointments commission, and that is the people, through the ballot box?
Mr. Leslie: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in the unique position of having served in both Houses, so he knows a certain amount but not, clearly, everything that needs to be known about these questions. He expresses his view, and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber express different views. Some prefer the composition to be more elected and some prefer it to be more appointed. His view did not prevail, however, in the votes that we had in the House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yours didn't."] Nor did my personal view prevail, and I am quite prepared to accept that. What should we do? Should we move forward or continue to have hereditary peers in the second Chamber? I do not believe that that is acceptable and I hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will agree.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As the Government are in a mess over House of Lords reform and the Commons has rejected seven different options and given no steer on what should happen, is the Minister on the lookout for alternative ideas? Tony Benn wrote a pamphlet in the late 1950s, when he was known as Anthony Wedgewood-Benn, in which he suggested that the Privy Council should become the second Chamber. That would have the distinct advantage of sending all the right honourables along the Corridor and leaving the rest of us here to get on with some serious business.
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend seems to be bidding for a place on the Joint Committee. As I said, we are happy to discuss any proposals that come forward with the Joint Committee. I am not sure whether the former right hon. Member for Chesterfield would be best placed to devise a consensus across both sides of the House. The Government are not in a mess, as my hon. Friend suggested. The House of Commons remains divided, so we must make progress as we can.
Mr. John Bercow: Given that it is the Minister's misfortune to present the hypocritical sophistry that passes for Government policy on this matter, and in the light of his failure effectively to respond to the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) or the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), will he have a last stab at explaining to the House how it can be democratic to proceed with the less popular option of appointment rather than the more popular option of election?
Mr. Leslie: By the time that the hon. Gentleman got to his question, he had raised a specific point on how we can step towards a more democratic second Chamber. Yet, we found ourselves in a situation in which neither the House of Lords nor this House would support such a move. We must ask whether the retention of hereditary peers would mean that the second Chamber would be

1101
more or less democratic. I believe that retaining hereditary peers, who are there by virtue of their birth, would be less democratic and that they should go.
Mr. Eric Martlew: My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that I shall support the Bill on the ground that I do not want to go back to my constituents or local Labour party to tell them that I voted to keep hereditary peers. In February, I voted for a 100 per cent. democratically elected Chamber and a 100 per cent. appointed Chamber because I do not believe in the hybrid system. I went to hear the statement in the other place and Lord Strathclyde, the leader of the Conservatives, threatened to use hereditary peers to interrupt Government business because he did not agree with the policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the killer comment came from Lord Marsh, who sits on the Cross Benches? He reminded the other place that the Conservative party had a majority in this House and the other House for 18 years yet did nothing about reforming the House of Lords, so we should take no lessons in democracy from Conservatives.
Mr. Leslie: It is interesting that Opposition parties have made not one proposal to try to rectify the balance of the political composition in the second Chamber or to suggest that there should be more Labour peers, who are in a small minority in the second Chamber. I heard Lord Strathclyde's comments and I trust that I should not interpret them as meaning that he would obstruct parliamentary business, because that would be inappropriate. It is possible to take steps toward a final stage and, especially, a consideration of composition, but for the time being, we must recognise that we are where we are and that we need to get rid of the hereditary peers. I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: As one of those who has adamantly opposed any form of election to the second Chamber and is therefore intrinsically more sympathetic to the central thrust of what the Minister has said than many of his Back-Bench colleagues, may I tell him that I am not happy about the idea of the appointments commission either? Why would it be intrinsically better for the power of appointment to be taken away from the Prime Minister, who is democratically accountable, and given instead to a unaccountable and unelected commission that is currently composed of a building society grandee, a governor of the BBC and an activist from Islington?
Mr. Leslie: We want to create a new statutory appointments commission. One of our proposals is that the commission should make its appointments free from the Prime Minister's patronage or interference and that the number of appointments that it makes should reflect the numbers of seats won or votes cast in a previous general election. That would represent a step toward a more legitimate appointments process. I urge the hon. Gentleman to investigate the proposal more closely because, of course, it is supported by the Conservative Front Benchers.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Why can we not be honest and remind people that the Prime Minister made
1102
his position clear a week before the crucial February vote? He wanted a wholly appointed second Chamber, which is something that I repudiate. If there were a vote in the Labour party outside the Chamber, the overwhelming majority of people would vote for—
Mr. Foulkes: Abolition.
Mr. Prentice: If the party did not vote for abolition, it would vote for a wholly elected second Chamber.
Mr. Foulkes: Abolition.
Mr. Prentice: May I ask my right hon. Friend to let me finish? On the theme of honesty, I have in my hand the Labour party national policy forum consultation document on democracy and citizenship. It says, "We believe"—that includes people such as myself—that individuals should
"govern their society effectively through democratic institutions."
How can a wholly appointed second Chamber be squared with that aspiration to bring democracy to our institutions?
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend expresses his frustrations, which I think are largely channelled toward the lack of consensus last February, because if his opinion had prevailed, progress could perhaps have been made. All hon. Members expressed their views—he expressed his. I expressed mine and the Prime Minister expressed his—but a majority was not achieved for any of the options proposed at the time. We therefore face the question of whether to keep or reject the hereditary peers. I believe that it is right to remove them.
Mr. Andy Reed: I respect the Minister's attempts to argue his case, but Opposition Members and, especially, Labour Members, have pointedly made it clear time after time that it is to be welcomed if we take it for granted that we should get rid of the hereditaries. The argument then shifts to what we should do. Those of us who voted for an elected Chamber in February want another chance to have that vote. Why should I and other hon. Members not be given the chance to go for that option before the next general election? I have not heard a single argument this afternoon that has convinced me that I should be denied that right.
Mr. Leslie: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, we had a lengthy and detailed opportunity to resolve some of the questions in February this year and the House declined to resolve the matter. Should we spend our time constantly revisiting the issue, perhaps at the expense of other priorities? Our constituents want to us to consider public services and other constitutional matters too. We must have regard to the decisions that Parliament took on 4 February yet make progress on disqualifying Members of the House of Lords who are convicted of serious offences, on setting up the statutory appointments commission and on removing hereditaries from the second Chamber. Many of those commitments were in our manifesto, so we must be realistic about making progress when we can.
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: We are losing sight of the moves that we have already made to

1103
reform the second Chamber, on which the Government should be congratulated. I take on board the comments that have been made about this House's desire for a proportion, if not all, of the second Chamber to be directly elected, but I take issue with my hon. Friend's points about composition. He agreed with the comment in the Joint Committee's report that the status quo of the composition of the House of Lords was undesirable. Maintaining that composition should not be an option rather than merely being "undesirable" because this House's will is that the status quo should not be an option.
Secondly, the extended activities of the second Chamber have been mentioned and it has been stressed that the pre-eminence of this House must be uppermost in people's minds. Will my hon. Friend give another assurance that there will be no such extension in respect of financial matters, such as the Finance Bill, and that we will resist all calls from the second Chamber to extend its role in that way?
Mr. Leslie: I confirm that the Government oppose any diminution of our rights and privileges to constrain the second Chamber in respect of financial privilege. My hon. Friend quotes the Joint Committee report as saying that the status quo is undesirable. We agree with that. Of course, the hereditary element is a significant part of that composition, which is why we want to remove it.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we should recognise the great progress that has been made. We have already got rid of more than 600 hereditary peers, and my colleagues have had a significant role in achieving that. We have proposed a new Supreme
1104
Court, abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor and the establishment of a new independent judicial appointments commission. We have also given devolution to the nations and regions. Our constitutional programme is significant, but we still need to move forward. That is exactly what the proposals suggest.
Mr. Chris Bryant: Delighted as I would be to see the back of the hereditary peers, and intrigued as I am at the prospect of Jeffrey Archer not only being removed from the House of Lords but applying to return to it—that really would be a work of fiction—is there not an enormous irony? Not only are the 92 hereditary peers the only elected Members of the second Chamber, but my hon. Friend's proposal is the least popular option in the House, the country and the parliamentary Labour party. Is he still open to proposals to improve this measly measure so that, for instance, we can get rid of the equally illegitimate bishops, who should no longer sit in the House of Lords, and provide for a third stage of House of Lords reform?
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is eager for more reform and we intend to provide it in our proposals. I underline that we do not close the door to future consideration of composition. We will continue to listen and respond to proposals and to discuss the deliberations of the Joint Committee with it to discover whether a consensus can emerge. This is not the final stage, but we have to accept that the decisions of the February votes provide us with a need to achieve a stable and sustainable House of Lords for the time being. That is basically what the proposals in our documents do.

Points of Order
2.23 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I raise Government abuse of Standing Order No. 22? It was clear from my exchange with the Leader of the House earlier that he is not prepared to protect the interests of Back Benchers on such a vital matter. You will know that as a result of changes in Standing Orders, the privilege of Members to ask priority written questions has been restricted to five such questions on any one day, yet Ministers, who hitherto said that they were so hard pressed that such a restriction was necessary, are not answering the questions on the named day.
There may be an excuse for that if the question is complicated, but why cannot straightforward questions—such as one on the costs of policing the Labour party conference in Bournemouth, the answer to which is in excess of £1.9 million—be answered on the day on which they are asked? I have just been in touch with the private office of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. It is clear that the answer to a question that I tabled for answer today is not yet available. That question reads:
"if he will attend a meeting with students to discuss top-up fees when he visits the University of Bournemouth in October."
That is hardly an exacting question that needs a lot of research. The fact that it has not been answered is surely an abuse of the House. It shows that there is not much point in the House returning in the middle of September if Ministers are not going to respond to questions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Mr. Speaker would clearly expect Ministers to respond in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House. The fact that the matter has been raised will mean that Mr. Speaker will consider the points raised.
Ms Sally Keeble: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A constituent of mine, John Tero, developed cancer while he was in prison and is now desperately ill. He was also the victim of a miscarriage of justice, which makes his position more serious. Because of grave concerns about the way in which he was treated, I referred his complaint to the Prison Service ombudsman. Bearing in mind the roles
1106
and responsibilities of ombudsmen, constituents and MPs, will you give a ruling on whether it was procedurally correct for the Home Office to make a statement to a radio station two days ago, giving the broad findings of the ombudsman's report, when, to my knowledge, the investigation has not been concluded and the complainant, my constituent, has not been consulted and is gravely ill?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Although that is not formally a point of order, Mr. Speaker is grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing the matter to his attention. I want to express Mr. Speaker's sympathy to the hon. Lady's constituent. Mr. Speaker would wish that the hon. Lady be given the opportunity to meet the Home Secretary to discuss the issues regarding the release of information from the ombudsman to the Home Office and its later transmission to the media before her constituent was informed.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. "Erskine May" describes certain words and phrases as unparliamentary. Hon. Members sometimes use such words in the heat of the moment and it is difficult for Mr. Speaker, you and your colleagues to keep track of that.
Earlier today, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) used the term "hypocritical sophistry". I think that that is pretty near to something that would be ruled out by "Erskine May". In Prime Minister's Question Time, I have heard the Prime Minister use the words "deceit" and "lies"—rather, I have heard the Leader of the Opposition use the words "deceit" and "lies" in relation to what the Prime Minister has been doing. It would be useful to go over those exchanges to ensure that the "Erskine May" rules are being upheld. I am in no way criticising Mr. Speaker or you and your colleagues, but it is very important that we—in particular, the Leader of the Opposition—do not use unparliamentary terms.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is important that all Members think carefully about their use of language. The comments to which the right hon. Gentleman referred were not directed at particular hon. Members. I am right in saying that Mr. Speaker would always ensure that the customs and traditions of the House are upheld.

Orders of the Day

  Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant document: Third Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2002–03, Arms Control and Disarmament Inspections Bill (HC 321), and the Government response thereto, Second Special Report from the Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 754.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  2.28 pm
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill concerns the adapted version of the conventional armed forces in Europe treaty—the CFE treaty—signed in Paris on 19 November 1990. The agreement on adaptation of the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe, known more familiarly as the adapted CFE treaty, was signed by all states parties to the CFE treaty at Istanbul on 19 November 1999.
  The CFE treaty limits the holdings of five categories of heavy weapons—tanks, armoured combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft and attack helicopters—by the 30 member states of NATO and the former Warsaw pact. It applies to the land territory of states parties in Europe. The treaty includes an important transparency and verification regime. It is seen as a cornerstone of European security and has resulted in the destruction of more than 50,000 heavy weapons in Europe. However, the treaty was negotiated at the end of the cold war and needed adaptation to reflect the break-up of the Warsaw pact and NATO enlargement.
  The adapted CFE treaty was therefore negotiated and signed by states parties to the CFE treaty at Istanbul in 1999. It replaces the old Warsaw pact-NATO bloc-to-bloc system with national and territorial ceilings for heavy weapons. The adapted CFE treaty provides for greater transparency than the present CFE treaty through a substantially enhanced system of information provision. In particular, it increases the amount of military information that each of the 30 states parties to the treaty exchanges, and enhances the regime of inspection. The adapted CFE treaty includes provisions for new European states to join, and also has an enhanced inspection regime, including a new type of inspection that could involve a large area and would not necessarily be limited to military bases. Together with the fact that some parts of military sites are increasingly owned and operated by private companies, that means that we need additional legislation to allow access to non-Ministry of Defence-owned property.
  The main provisions of this short, technical Bill amend the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Act 1991 to provide for the additional rights of entry to private land that are required to implement the additional inspection requirements of the protocol on inspection in the agreement on adaptation. On 3 February, the Secretary of State signed a memorandum confirming that the Bill's provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights. That was subsequently confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who was then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
  1108
  The Bill also confers a power on Her Majesty to make further amendments to the 1991 Act relating to inspections by Order in Council, should they be needed to implement future amendments to the CFE treaty relating to inspections. During the Bill's passage through the House of Lords, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee agreed that that level of delegation and control was appropriate. The Bill thus provides the legislation necessary for the UK to ratify the adapted CFE treaty quickly when the time is right. While the UK is committed to the treaty's earliest possible entry into force, our position and that of our NATO allies remains that ratification can only be envisaged in the context of full compliance by all states parties with agreed treaty limits, consistent with commitments in the CFE Final Act. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, those commitments are those agreed between Russia, Georgia and Moldova on the closure of Russian bases and the withdrawal of Russian troops and equipment from the territory of the other two states, which have not yet been fulfilled. We and other NATO allies continue to urge Russia to work with Georgia and Moldova to resolve the outstanding issues on the basis of the principle of host nation consent.
  The Secretary of State will not bring the Bill into force in accordance with clause 3 until the Government are ready to ratify the agreement on adaptation. When the Secretary of State decides that the time is right to bring the Bill into force in accordance with clause 3, the Government are content to notify the House at least 21 days before their intention to proceed to ratification. I hope that the House will be able to support the Bill.
  2.33 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: The official Opposition certainly welcome the Bill's objective, which reflects the desire of the whole House and the country for a safer world with fewer armaments, particularly those that no longer serve any strategic purpose. Having said that, I am a little surprised by the short time that the Minister took to introduce the Bill. Good as it is, it includes a number of things that stretch the official Opposition's good will a little and the charity of my colleagues a good long way. I hope that when the Minister responds to what is likely to be a short debate he will be able to demonstrate that our charity is not misplaced by giving us more specific assurances on a number of points than he provided in his opening remarks.
  Sadly, I have a strange feeling that our debate—perhaps given our limited presence in the House, colloquium would be a more appropriate phrase—will not be leading the news broadcasts later. That is a shame, because the treaty that we are effectively adapting today has by any standards been a conspicuous success and something that we should celebrate. It has played a major part in building the peace and security of our continent, which we should never take for granted. The many violent events that have convulsed Europe and cost millions of lives in the last century, most recently in the Balkans, should remind us that peace is not the natural order of our continent. One of our prime duties in the House is to work for the greater security of our constituents, and today we are considering a matter of great importance to that security.

  1109
  This debate is inherently above party politics and, as was evident in the debates in the other place to which the Minister referred, there is a lot of common ground to be found. However, we will seek clarification of a number of points, and I am confident that the Minister, with his customary good humour and diligence, will be able to provide that. It is right to put on record the House's gratitude to the Select Committee on Defence for its excellent third report for the 2002–03 Session on the Bill. It was published in April, and is an excellent piece of pre-legislative scrutiny that genuinely focuses and informs our debate today. I am sure that, like me, the Minister is a strong believer in pre-legislative scrutiny, especially on technical matters such as the Bill, where some calm deliberation, ahead of the often more partisan nature of the processes involved in the Bill's passage through the House and Committee, can assist hon. Members. Such is the Defence Committee's third report, and I commend it to anyone wishing to understand the issues raised by the Bill.
  I should also like to express my gratitude in preparing for this debate to the Library, for its excellent research paper. I do not know how often this has been done in the past by the Library or the Government, but the text of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Act 1991, as amended by the Bill, is included in an extremely helpful appendix to the research document. The Government might consider incorporating such amended measures in explanatory notes to technical Bills in future. Frankly, the Bill as it stands does not make a great deal of sense. That is not a criticism of the parliamentary draftsman or the Government—the changes that the Bill will bring into effect are difficult to understand. The Library's approach of crossing out the bits in the 1991 Act that we are repealing and deleting is helpful, and assisted my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) and I as we prepared for this debate. The Library therefore deserves special thanks.
  The Minister rightly put the Bill in context, and explained how the original treaty placed limits on the numbers of combat aircraft, tanks, attack helicopters, armoured vehicles and so on. In fact, he rather undersold the case for the treaty which, I think I am right in saying, is probably the most comprehensive arms control ever agreed in history. It is less inherently fascinating than the discussion about nuclear weapons that tended to dominate the news headlines at the time, but the fact is that this vital treaty has provided a means of establishing a military balance in Europe.
  First and foremost, it was an arms reduction treaty, which demanded that the contracting parties reduce their heavy weaponry and equipment by 50,000 items—a not insubstantial figure by any reckoning. Just as importantly, as the Minister emphasised, it was a conflict prevention treaty aimed at increasing transparency, building confidence, and reducing tension. It did that by preventing provocative and destabilising concentrations of military forces, and still does its work today, even unadapted, as it remains in force, pending the entry into force of the agreement on adaptation.
  1110
  The fact such a treaty could be agreed reflected the mood of increased co-operation and good will between the two blocs towards the end of the cold war. Verification of compliance was achieved by inspections and the treaty's provisions were incorporated in UK law by the 1991 Act. The second CFE review conference was held in Vienna in May to June 2001, and made the following observations on implementation:
  "The implementation of the Treaty since its entry into force in 1992 has brought positive results including significantly reduced holdings of Treaty-limited equipment and increased confidence through transparency and predictability involving conventional armed forces. The States Parties welcomed the impressive progress that had been made in implementing the Treaty, including the reduction of more than 59,000 pieces of conventional armaments and equipment, the exchange of about 6,000 notifications per year in addition to annual exchanges of information and the conduct of more than 3,300 on-site inspections and observation visits to verify compliance with the provisions of the Treaty and its associated documents. With regard to the Concluding Act on Personnel Strength, the States Parties noted with satisfaction that the personnel strength of conventional armed forces in the area of application had been reduced significantly."
  That is all very good news, but not everything was perfect. The conference also concluded that
  "in general the CFE Treaty was operating and being implemented in a satisfactory manner. However, there were a number of implementation issues requiring further consideration and resolution in the Joint Consultative Group.
  The States Parties noted"—
  I am still quoting from the conclusions—
  "that certain numerical limitations established by the Treaty were being exceeded. The States Parties were informed that the excess, which had been declared to be of a temporary nature, had been decreased. They expect"
  this was in 2001—
  "that the remaining excess will be eliminated as soon as it is possible. They reaffirmed the importance of transparency with regard to the elimination of any excesses over CFE Treaty limits. In this context, they reiterated their commitment to full and continued implementation of the Treaty and its associated documents and their adherence to its numerical limitations."
  Thus, there were reservations.
  The rapid changes that followed the end of the cold war in 1990 could not have been envisaged at the time the treaty was originally agreed. We now know that those were of sweeping significance. I was one of the woodpeckers who attacked the Berlin wall in early 1990 with a chisel which, I remember, was, ironically., manufactured in the People's Republic of China. Little did we know what we had begun. The Warsaw pact collapsed, leaving only NATO as the military pact operating in Europe, and the USA as the single remaining superpower, which made necessary a great re-adjustment of strategic priorities and strategic thinking around the globe.
  With reference to the Bill, the most important consequence of the end of the cold war was the disintegration of the USSR and the emergence of a host of new states—Czechoslovakia became the Czech and Slovak Republics, and countries such as the Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia and Armenia emerged as international players in their own right. Now a total of 30 nations are parties to the treaty.

  1111
  As I am sure the Minister will agree, these changes made the control and limitation of conventional weapons in Europe no less important. Indeed, in some cases it has become more so, as out-of-area or former Soviet equipment needs to be accounted for more closely. In 1999, as the Minister told us, the agreement of adaptation was signed in Istanbul, but the 1990 treaty remains valid and takes account of the demise of the blocs, setting ceilings on a national basis, rather than a bloc basis.
  One learns something all the time in the House, and I was intrigued by the table in the Library document, which sets out the national ceilings under the adaptation agreement. It is perhaps no surprise to discover that the UK has, under the national ceilings, an allowance of 843 battle tanks, 3,017 armoured combat vehicles, 583 pieces of artillery, 855 combat aircraft and 350 attack helicopters. France has rather more battle tanks than we do, at 1,226, but Armenia boasts 220 battle tanks and 220 armoured combat vehicles. To my surprise, neither Luxembourg nor Iceland boasts any. They have nul points in every category—no battle tanks, no armoured combat vehicles, no pieces of artillery and no combat aircraft.
  Mr. Mark Francois: What about the Swedes?
  Mr. Luff: They do not seem to have a national ceiling under the adaptation agreement.
  Crucially, the Bill and the adaptation agreement provide for greater entry rights to private land under the inspections procedure. This is one of the issues on which we seek further clarification from the Minister, for despite the noble objectives of the Bill, it is a technical Bill and deserves scrutiny on specific points.
  I turn first to the limits and burdens under the new agreement. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the annual limit on inspections that can be carried out by one state in any given year. Equally importantly, given the tables on page 10 of the third report of the Defence Committee, does the Minister envisage that the increased liability under the 1999 agreement to host inspections under section VII, albeit with the proviso that some may be replaced by section VIII inspections, will result in an increased financial burden or burden of inconvenience to our defence establishment, or does he believe that the number of inspections carried out will remain well under the maximum limits in practice? I suspect that his answer will be the latter, so some evidence of the reasons for his conclusion would be welcome.
  Similarly, what will be the impact on other parties to the treaty, especially the younger countries? There is a difficult balance to be struck between ensuring that inspections do not place an intolerably high burden on the host country, and ensuring that the inspection and verification regime is suitably strict and transparent enough to guarantee that all parties to the treaty are honouring their obligations. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the balance will be successfully achieved under the adapted treaty? I hope for rather more than a straight "Yes" from the Minister. Some explanation of the grounds for his optimism would be appreciated.
  1112
  One of the most important issues in the Bill is the impact on the private sector. It is reassuring that in paragraph 18 of its report, the Defence Committee states that it believes that the position for private operators will not be
  "significantly different after the Adaptation Agreement is implemented than before".
  The Committee gives its reasons for that. It states:
  "This is for a number of reasons: in the past less than half of the existing liability has been taken up; inspecting states will bear the cost of conducting additional inspections, and as new members join NATO the pool of other states who might wish to inspect UK forces is likely to diminish."
  However, there is the potential for increased inspection of privately owned land, as the Government have acknowledged, if only because of the increased private sector role in defence matters. If my memory of my reading for the debate serves me correctly, we are discussing only matters that can be concealed behind doors of more than 2m in width. I believe that that appears in the agreement.
  I do not wish to appear to be nit-picking, but I do think that the explanatory notes are a little over optimistic when they state:
  "The Bill will have no impact on business."
  In this context, I shall speak for a moment about Qinetiq, which has a geographically large establishment in my constituency, Mid-Worcestershire, at the former RAF Pershore site, which was a dispersal site for Vulcan bombers. The site has acquired unlooked-for fame as a result of Government policy in other very different areas, but it is one of more than 25 Qinetiq sites, of which at least two others are in Malvern in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer), and they may all be affected by the Bill.
  Qinetiq is the company in which the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency—DERA—was vested back in 2001. Since its establishment in July 2001, Qinetiq has taken ownership of these formerly MOD-owned sites, including training areas, testing sites and airfields. I know from my visits to the Pershore establishment that it is possible that inspections may be required there. Under the 1999 agreement on the adaptation of the CFE treaty, as the Library briefing paper notes, these will be defined as "declared sites" and thereby made subject to inspections under the Bill. The number of sites run by Qinetiq may well increase over the coming months and years. That, I imagine, is the Government's expectation.
  Although I note that no private company or owners of a site have yet refused an inspection, I believe it is important that such companies do not risk falling foul of overly intrusive or demanding inspections through no fault of their own, but simply through an over-optimistic interpretation of the implications of the legislation. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that all those contractors, land-owners and other groups, such as Qinetiq, which could potentially be affected, are fully aware of the implications? What consultations have there been with such groups? How confident are the Government that they have got the assessment right?
  I turn next to the Baltic and Balkan states. I find it interesting that they, particularly the Baltic states, are absent from the treaty. I understand that the fact the Baltic states are not parties to it has been a cause of concern to Russia in the past, given that it might permit

  1113
  countries to station large amounts of conventional military equipment there, yet not be in breach of the treaty. As the Library note puts it, Russia believes the absence of the Baltic states from the treaty constitutes a loophole that could allow NATO to deploy large numbers of forces and equipment to a potentially threatening position, without reference to CFE limits.
  Of course, we are pleased that the new agreement contains provisions for the accession of states that are not at present party to the CFE treaty. I understand, and the Minister may be able to confirm when he winds up the debate, that the Baltic states have indicated that they would consider joining as part of their accession to NATO. Could the Minister, when he sums up, set out what progress has been made in that respect and tell us whether any substantive negotiations have yet taken place? Could he also enlighten us as to the position on the Balkan states that are not parties to the treaty?
  I shall speak briefly about Russia. In its helpful report, the Defence Committee stated:
  "Because the Act would give the Government the ability to ratify the Agreement by Statutory Instrument, consideration of the Bill itself needs to be focussed on the question of ratification."
  I am conscious that the House may feel that my remarks so far have not properly addressed the essential question. There are a number of extremely important outstanding non-compliance issues in relation to Russia, Georgia and Moldova, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) will raise in greater depth in his winding-up speech. I simply say at this point that despite some progress, the on-going problems remain a matter of concern to the Opposition. The Minister should be aware that we will seek to explore those problems later in the debate. I hope that he will address them, as they go to the heart of the timetable of our ratification of the adapted treaty.
  Mention of timetables brings me to what the Minister will be glad to hear is my last but one point. I should like to register my surprise that the Bill has taken so long to reach this House, especially as it completed its passage in the other place on 30 January this year. That time lag alone constitutes a compelling reason why we should be fully updated about what has happened in the past eight months. Given that recent days have not exactly been over-burdened with legislation, I am surprised that the Government have delayed the Bill so long. The conspiracy theorist in me asks why that is the case. Was it kept back merely to occupy us during this rather awkward September fortnight that the Government have landed on the House or is there some more substantial and genuine reason for the delay? I think that the House should be told, as the Bill has languished in purgatory for an extraordinarily long period.
  My last point concerns the statutory instrument procedure, to which the Minister referred. The Opposition have reservations about the fact that the Bill contains powers to provide that future changes made by Her Majesty by Order in Council will be effected by statutory instrument and not primary legislation. It is in that specific regard that the official Opposition's charity is being stretched a little. We are looking for a rather more categorical reassurance from the Minister than he
  1114
  offered in his speech. Yes, the Government reassured the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, which expressed its contentment with their plans. In November 2002, now almost a year ago, it said:
  "In view of the limited nature of the power and the fact that it will be subject to affirmative procedure, we consider that this level of delegation and control is appropriate."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness will return to that subject, as well as to ratification issues, if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. In essence, our position is that we regard the procedures proposed in the Bill as inadvisable, but not, on this specific and limited occasion, objectionable. We seek a reassurance over and above that which the Minister gave the House in his. speech that the Government will not in future cite that exception to the general rule that treaty matters are matters for primary legislation as a precedent in respect of other treaties or modifications to them.
  As the Minister knows, other more contentious treaties are in prospect, and they could also be subject to later revision. That revision might be significant in some people's eyes, if not in other people's. Opposition Members may judge such revision to be fundamental, even if the Government change their mind on that question. We remain of the view that primary legislation is the right way of dealing with treaties. I hope that he will confirm that that is the Government's view. I hope that the provision is the exception that tests the rule and does not break it.
  The Minister referred to the Ponsonby rule, although he avoided that exact phrase. It is widely expected that the Government will embrace the so-called Ponsonby rule, and that appeared to be what the Minister said. It is an undertaking observed by Governments since the 1920s that treaties that have been signed and are subject to ratification are laid before the House for 21 days before being ratified. Indeed, the Government promised as much in their response to the Defence Committee in June:
  "The Government is content to give a specific undertaking in the Second Reading debate on the Bill to notify the House at least 21 days in advance of its decision to proceed to ratification, to allow for additional discussion of the issues at that time."
  I cannot immediately recall exactly the word that the Minister used on the Ponsonby rule in speaking about it towards the end of his speech, but it seemed to fall short of the wholehearted commitment that I thought we were getting in the Government's response to the Select Committee report.
  Mr. MacShane indicated dissent.
  Mr. Luff: I am delighted that the Minister has indicated dissent, as Hansard will say. There is clearly a wholehearted commitment to allow 21 days and I am grateful for that assurance.
  I am still looking for one further reassurance in respect of how the Government will treat the 21 days. For example, I trust that they will not announce their decision to ratify on the first day of the Christmas recess, reducing from 21 to seven days the effective notice period for the House. As well as embracing the letter of Ponsonby, I hope that the Government will be content to embrace his spirit and give us 21 parliamentary

  1115
  days—not necessarily sitting days, but 21 days during a full sitting period, or three full weeks—so that proper consideration can be given to the matter.
  The Opposition believe that this is an important Bill, despite its being so concise. It reflects important international developments and also makes an important contribution to conflict prevention by reducing the number of weapons that could be deployed in Europe. It is necessary for the implementation of the 1999 agreement and for the treaty's ability to keep pace with developments. I am pleased that it has finally reached us. I hope that the Minister will be able to assist with the clarifications for which I have asked, but subject to reassurances from him, we certainly look forward to the Bill completing its passage.
  2.55 pm
  Mr. Michael Moore: May I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) in expressing surprise that it has taken quite so long for such a modest Bill to come to this end of the building from another place, considering the period that has now elapsed since it completed its stages there? None the less, it is an important measure and it is a shame that we can muster so few hon. Members in the Chamber to hear this debate and participate in it. We can only hope that in the highways and byways of Brent, to pick a place at random, people are discussing the issues as seriously as they should be.
  The Liberal Democrats believe that the treaty is very important. The principle of inspections and verification is important to arms control. As my noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said last November in another place, the Bill represents a modest but useful extension of the treaty.
  The original treaty has been very valuable. When we reflect on the sweeping changes that have occurred since it was passed in the international community and Europe in particular, we should perhaps accord it more credit for that stability than we are in danger of doing. Sometimes, I believe that we in this country and this House are in danger of forgetting the cold war and the effect that it had for a long time on the area covered by the treaty, from the Atlantic to the Urals. I am afraid that I cannot claim credit for physically helping to bring clown the Berlin wall, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire did, and neither do I have the Minister's credentials in promoting the cause of democracy in places such as Poland and elsewhere in what is now central Europe. However, for those of my generation—if I may be so cheeky—it was an important development when the cold war and all the dangers that it posed was put safely in a new context. The treaty has been important in that regard. Our threats assessments tend nowadays to be slightly more focused on international terrorism, but as the hon. Gentleman said, Europe's tortured history demands that we should, in a more traditional context, continue to take issues of peace and security seriously.
  In recent months, we have debated long and hard in this Chamber the enlargement of the European Union. The fact that so many of the countries that were originally parties to the treaty from the other side, if I may put it that way, are now to join us in the enlarged
  1116
  European Union is a great sign of progress. As that political situation has changed, the treaty should be amended to catch up with modern reality.
  I do not want to repeat many of the valuable remarks that have already been made and highlight issues of disarmament that have been mentioned. I wish simply to ask the Minister for a couple of clarifications. One of the founding principles of arms control that underpins the treaty is mutual inspection. Last November, my noble Friend Lord Wallace asked Baroness Symons whether the treaty applied to United States bases in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the treaty area. For whatever reason, the Baroness was unable or unwilling to respond to that point; perhaps the Minister would do us the courtesy of plugging that gap in our understanding.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire mentioned Qinetiq. I do not want to put words into his mouth, but I hope that he was not suggesting that it should get special treatment as a private institution. Given its unusual hybrid status, I understand that it may fear unreasonable intrusions, but it is not surprising that some focus should fall upon it. Will the Minister clarify how it fits into the process?
  I echo hon. Members' concerns about ongoing noncompliance with existing treaty obligations, particularly by Russia—although I accept that the adaptation to the treaty recognised Russia's concerns about its border security in areas such as Georgia and Moldova. The Minister said that we continue to urge the Russians to comply. Will he tell us what progress is being made and how soon we may hope to find ourselves in the happy position of ratifying the treaty?
  I reinforce what was said about the importance of Parliament having the opportunity to contribute to the debate once the Government have decided that they should ratify the treaty. To borrow the elegant phrase used by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, the statutory instrument approach is inadvisable, but not objectionable. Liberal Democrat Members—perhaps with more consistency, as we have been on this side of the House for longer than Labour or Conservative Members—do not like the principle at all. We must get a specific assurance from the Minister that it is specifically linked to this treaty and adaptation.
  I have no desire to detain the House any further than has been necessary. Liberal Democrat Members believe that this is an important treaty that is sometimes not given enough credit for its contribution to our peace and security. In that spirit, we wish to see the Bill passed.
  3.2 pm
  Mr. Mark Simmonds: Although the Bill is largely technical, and is certainly short, this has been an interesting and instructive debate. The issues addressed by the Bill are much broader than its specifics would suggest. It goes to the heart of the changes to the geopolitical landscape that have taken place over the past decade and a half and of the wider debate on arms controls and effective measures to help conflict prevention.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said in his detailed and articulate speech, the world in which we live today has

  1117
  changed dramatically from that of 1990. It is therefore right that in 1999 the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe was updated to reflect that fact. As my hon. Friend said, that has led to a reduction of 59,000 conventional armaments and some 3,300 inspections and visits. The new treaty recognises that the old blocs of the cold war are no longer so relevant. The Warsaw pact has gone, and NATO has assumed a more encompassing role, particularly in view of its planned enlargement to include former Warsaw pact countries. The 1999 treaty reflects that with the replacement of equipment ceilings for blocs with ceilings per state. I welcome that recognition that the bloc mentality is over, but I cannot but be puzzled that the Government, particularly the Minister, are still determined to forge the European Union into another bloc through the integrationist constitution.
  I will not reiterate in detail the points made so ably by my hon. Friend, especially in relation to the need for technical changes to the inspections and verifications procedures. I would, however, like to evaluate what might be termed the Russian dimension, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend, by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). That is linked in many ways to ratification timings, and revolves around the principle of the free consent of host states to the deployment of foreign military equipment. Conservative Members have concerns about the Russian position in Moldova and Georgia, despite a Russian commitment to withdraw its forces from those countries by the end of 2002. In September 2002, President Putin told the United Nations Secretary-General that
  "unless the Georgian leadership takes practical action to liquidate terrorists, and if bandit raids continue to originate from its territory, Russia… shall take adequate measures to resist the terrorist threat".
  That does not suggest that as recently as this time last year President Putin envisaged that the conditions would be right for Russia to withdraw her troops. Although I appreciate that the situation in Abkhazia means that relations between Russia and Georgia remain tense, I am aware that some progress has none the less been made in reducing treaty-limited equipment levels to the required amount. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us what progress has since been made and whether he is satisfied with efforts to resolve these issues.
  Does the Minister have any idea when a UK inspection team might be able to visit the Gadauta base to verify whether it has been fully transferred from Russian control, as planned? Similarly, separatist disputes in Moldova complicate the situation there. That means that the estimated date for Russian withdrawal is now the end of 2003—a year later than planned—and it appears that even that time scale may have to be further extended. I understand that the mechanics of withdrawal are complex, especially as the aptly named separatist leader, Mr. Smirnov, controls the railways. Will the Minister update the House on any progress in that direction, given that it is now eight months since these matters were debated in the other place?
  1118
  Contained within the Russian dimension is the question of armament allocation. The terms of the original treaty applied to the Russian army and land forces, but a loophole appeared to the effect that, for example, the transfer of motorised regiments to the navy could effectively remove them from inclusion in the matériels counted towards their ceilings. Does that opportunity still exist; or have changes since the original treaty and the new national ceilings effectively encompassed all matériel, regardless of the service to which it is attached?
  I want to highlight a few other areas that were touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire and by my noble Friend in the other place, but still require updating and clarification from the Minister. Conservative Members have concerns about the powers that the Bill grants the Government to enact future changes to the treaty by statutory instrument. Baroness Symons offered a reassurance that such amendments would be subject to affirmative resolution. However, given that since the original treaty's enactment in UK law in 1991 it has needed to be amended in Parliament only very infrequently since, primary legislation allowing proper scrutiny once every 12 years or so does not represent an intolerable burden on the time of this House and is not something to which the Government should object. I am also concerned that such a procedure for amending treaties, although we will not oppose it in the Lobby on this occasion, should not be viewed as a precedent for amending other treaties.
  I am uneasy about why this Bill is coming before us now. It has taken eight months to arrive, yet there appears to be no indication of the time scale that the Government are contemplating for ratification. I am concerned to discover that so far only Belarus and Ukraine have ratified the adaptation agreement agreed in 1999—and no NATO state has proceeded to ratification—although for most state parties the benefits of ratification would outweigh those of waiting for a resolution of the Georgian and Moldovan disputes. Are the Government determined to wait until that is resolved, despite its impact upon ratification timetables?
  In addition to the Government's pledge that the matter will be laid before the House for 21 days before ratification, will the Minister tell us when he envisages ratification taking place, given that four years have already passed since the conclusion of the agreement in Istanbul? My understanding of the Bill's contents is that hon. Members are being asked to provide the Foreign Secretary with ratification powers that may last and be unused for years. The geopolitical landscape may have changed by the time the Foreign Secretary ratifies. Surely it is right for the House to have the ability to judge and deliberate on those matters in context when ratification occurs.
  Does the agreement mean that our bases and facilities in Gibraltar and/or Cyprus will be subject to inspection by other parties to the treaty? Will the Minister clarify the interaction of territorial ceilings? Although I note that in most cases the two ceilings are the same, am I correct that equipment in areas that are not covered by the territorial terms of the agreement, for example, the Russian territory beyond the Urals, would remain covered by that country's national ceilings?

  1119
  The debate has been important. Despite the technical nature of the Bill's provisions, the broader issues that are pertinent to the measure's background are significant foreign and defence policy questions. I am eager to listen to the Minister's response and clarification of important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and I have raised. In the expectation that the Minister will offer adequate assurances, we are happy to support the important Bill and endorse the contribution of the 1990 and 1999 agreements to making a Europe a safer place.
  3.11 pm
  Mr. MaeShane: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate. I congratulate hon. Members on solid contributions and the excellent work on the Bill. It is right to note that 59,000 major pieces of weaponry have been destroyed under the agreements. We may all take some credit for that.
  Whenever the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) debates any matter with me, he makes an elegant, eloquent and erudite speech. We learned that he was a woodpecker, pecking at the Berlin wall. His nickname in the House should be "Woody" from now on. However, his speech was not wooden.
  The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) managed to drag the Conservative party's European Union obsessions into the debate. I congratulate him on that; it is to his credit. The more the Conservative party shows its obsession and fanatical dislike of Europe, the happier I—and, I believe, the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore)—will be. If the voters of Brent, East are listening to the debate, they will doubtless take account of the Conservative party's obsession with getting Britain out of Europe when they cast their votes. [Interruption.] I did not want to talk about such matters, but I have to reply to the debate.
  Let us revert to serious points. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire was right to praise the work of the Select Committee on Defence. The document that it produced is good and the Committee is one of the House's best Select Committees. He was also right to draw attention to the excellent work of the international department of the Library. It does not receive the credit that its work merits. In my nine years in the House, I have found that the ladies and gentlemen who work there produce good documents and individual briefings of excellent quality for hon. Members. One great use is being able to examine documents side by side, for example, a treaty and the changes to it. That is a good way in which to explain matters to hon. Members and the public.
  Several important questions have been asked, and I shall try to deal with them. If I fail to deal with any points that hon. Members have made, I hope that they will write to me. I simply want cross-party consensus on the Bill. The number of inspections was referred to. The United Kingdom currently has to undertake 18 and the number will increase to 24 if the new treaty is ratified. That is a reasonable number. The majority are in the United Kingdom and some are at our bases in Germany.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire asked about Qinetiq, which is an important private contractor for defence activity in the United Kingdom. Most of it
  1120
  managers come from the Ministry of Defence and they understand the obligations that are laid on not only this but other Governments. They accept that the inspection regime will have to be maintained. However, the number of inspections is not onerous and we have no evidence that they will impose a new business burden on the company.
  We are confident that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. Article 1 of protocol 1 of the convention deals with protecting the right to property. However, the right is not unlimited and we do not believe that it will pose any difficulties to Qinetiq or other private companies.
  I was asked why we were taking time to ratify. The answer is simple and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness made it clear. The common position of all NATO member states is that we will ratify when we are satisfied that the other principal European states—of course, we mean Russia—are complying with the treaty's obligations. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the problems in Moldova and Georgia.
  Inspection in Georgia has had to be put back until next year because Russia exercised its state's right to Georgian inspection. I raised the position of Moldova in Kiev on a visit to the Ukrainian Government on Sunday and Monday. We are worried about the position in Transnistria and the activities of Mr. Smirnov, including his failure to allow the proper dismantling of the Russian arms that are stored there. That is a cause of anxiety to Ukrainian and Moldovan Governments as well as to us and the Russian authorities. A region of Europe is under the control of a certain gentleman who is not prepared to operate by the rules of the treaty. That is why the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is active there. As the Minister responsible for the OSCE's work, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are seized of the position.
  We have to discuss ratification with our partners. We want full NATO ratification—Britain should not go it alone. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Ponsonby rules will be fulfilled. Indeed, we go further because we are not considering sneaking ratification through. The treaty is important and Parliament, not only the House of Commons, should consider it. The advantage of the adapted treaty is that new states can join. As the Balkan states move closer to membership of the European Union or NATO, we hope that they will be ready to join. The treaty allows for that.
  The United States is a party to the treaty and I shall write to confirm whether US facilities in the United Kingdom are declared sites under its terms. The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale asked about that.
  A point was made about the way in which to effect the treaty once it is ratified. Statutory instruments will be used to allow small, technical rules that apply to inspection regimes in the United Kingdom to be taken forward. With all due respect, I do not think that many hon. Members believe that primary legislation would be needed each time such changes were required.
  Hon. Members were quite right, however, to draw attention to the increasing corpus of international law by which we are all now bound, and to the need for it to

  1121
  be properly considered by the House. In terms of legislation in this House, however, let us remember that we are talking about any aspect of a treaty that has been signed and ratified being transposed into domestic law. It is therefore reasonable for the Government to decide whether that should be done through primary legislation or statutory instruments.
  Mr. Luff: The Minister's words have not given us quite the comfort that we were looking for on this matter. Would the use of statutory instruments be exceptional? Would the presumption be that they would not be used in treaty change legislation?
  Mr. MacShane: I was not in the House during the great Maastricht debates, which are the most famous example of primary legislation carrying into effect a significant international treaty. I would find it hard to envisage the House accepting significant changes in domestic law derived from treaty obligations if they had not been properly debated in the House, but I am unable definitively to say what this or any future Government's position would be on international treaties when they are transposed into domestic law, whether by primary or secondary legislation.
  I was asked about the Baltic states. As I have said, the new treaty allows new states to join, and the Baltic states are on the path to becoming NATO members. I assume that they will join other NATO members in examining ratification as and when we are satisfied that all parties to the original treaty—and now the adapted treaty—are fulfilling all its obligations.
  I hope that that deals with most of the points that have been raised, but if any hon. Member requires further clarification, I shall be happy to write to them. The Bill will enable the UK to ratify the adapted CFE treaty quickly at the appropriate time. Once the adapted treaty has been ratified by all states and parties and comes into force, other states in the area of application will be able to join, thus extending the scope for co-operation on arms control throughout Europe and enhancing security and stability in the region as a whole.
  The Bill is a necessary step in enabling the UK to ratify the adapted CFE treaty, but I want to assure hon. Members that legislation will not be brought into force until the time is right to do so—that is, when all states and parties have complied fully with agreed treaty limits consistent with the commitments contained in the CFE final Act. Again, I want to assure the House on the matter of the full 21 days. I do not want to give an absolute cast-iron guarantee, because I do not know where I shall be when the treaty comes for ratification. I
  1122
  do not know how many days might be included in a Christmas break or other break, but there is no evidence that this—or any previous or future—Government would seek to smuggle a treaty through. I know that those on the Opposition Front Bench would make jolly sure that that would not happen.
  I hope that I have dealt with all the points raised in the debate. I thank all the hon. Members for their constructive questions, which have been important in clarifying matters. I hope that the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  Royal Assent
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Fireworks Act 2003

  National Lottery (Funding of Endowments) Act 2003

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Act 2003

  Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Act 2003

  Local Government Act 2003

  PETITION

    Fair Trade
    3.25 pm
    Mr. George Osborne: I am delighted to present a petition, organised by Ms Mildred Sellers, Peter Bowler and David Tonks, of more than 1,000 residents of Knutsford, Wilmslow, Alderley Edge and the surrounding area.
    The petitioners declare that they believe that the international trading system is heavily weighted in favour of the richest and most powerful countries; that in such an imbalanced world it is morally wrong to expect the poorest to compete on equal terms with the wealthiest; and that the trade rules of the world trading system must explicitly and deliberately favour the poorest countries if they are to reap the benefits of trade.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Government to do everything in their power to bring about trade justice.
    And the petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Horse Racing
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]
  3.26 pm
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on the Office of Fair Trading's investigation into the control of horse racing, and I am grateful to the Minister for staying behind to reply to it, and for his co-operation on this issue.
  In my other role as a shadow Department of Trade and Industry Minister, part of my responsibility is for competition and consumers, but I am holding this debate as the Member of Parliament whose constituency contains the Cheltenham race course at Prestbury Park, which many people rightly consider to be the greatest race course in the world, although I have not yet seen all of them.
  Chris Grayling: The second greatest.
  Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend obviously disputes my opinion.
  I have also been a follower of the sport of racing, particularly national hunt racing, for more than 20 years, so I have a personal interest in the matter. Having said that, I do not have a vested interest in it, in that I am not involved in any one aspect of the sport. For example, I am not an owner, trainer or breeder, or anything similar. I am just someone who loves the sport and who enjoys the odd flutter when I have time, although not usually too successfully. The point is that I come to the debate as a neutral.
  The debate is urgent and extremely important to the sport of horse racing because the OFT has issued a preliminary notice that it believes that there are unacceptable restrictions on competition caused by the central control of the fixture list by the British Horseracing Board, by the central selling of data regarding details of races by that body, and by the setting of rules and orders by the Jockey Club.
  It is a sad fact that the many factions in racing—the breeders, owners, jockeys, stable staff, trainers, bookmakers, race courses and so on—represent warring factions. The industry is well known for that. In fact, the former Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who used to have responsibility for much of racing, once said to me, "Laurence, for all my experience of dealing with Militant in Liverpool, none of it prepared me for the racing world." I think we all know what he meant.
  It must be said, however, that the OFT's preliminary ruling has served to unite almost the entire racing fraternity in opposition to its plans. Even the Minister for Sport is concerned about its proposals. In a letter to me dated 29 August, he wrote:
  "I share your view that full implementation of the OFT's rulings, as far as we understand them, may damage the fabric or integrity of the sport".
  That is a profound statement from the Minister.
  So why is the OFT making these recommendations, and why is it looking into what is essentially a sport in the first place? Its concern should surely be for the
  1124
  consumer; yet in the last 10 years, attendance at race courses has increased by 21 per cent. The consumers of this sport do not seem to be unduly worried about the way in which horse racing is run. In the same 10-year period, the amount of prize money has increased by 64 per cent., the number of runners by 20 per cent., the number of horses in training by 19 per cent., the number of owners by 8 per cent., the number or races by 7 per cent. and the number of fixtures by 4 per cent. Those figures do not point to a sport that is in crisis or being badly or fairly managed; quite the reverse.
  Even more important than those figures is the fact that British horse racing has integrity. The latest row in horse racing—I have to say that there are more rows in racing than there are rebellions in new Labour—is over whether jockeys should be allowed to use mobile phones. I will not get into that argument, other than to say that the Jockey Club's proposals may be an indication of how seriously this body takes the issue of integrity.
  Does anyone really believe that rich people from abroad, such as the Maktoum family, would play such a large part in British racing if it did not have integrity? Would such people engage in a sport that was fragmented, as the OFT seems to suggest that it should be? At present racing takes place on almost every day of the year, and many evenings. There are never fewer than two meetings a day, and rarely more than four. The types of races run are carefully balanced, and prize money is systematically and sympathetically distributed. That is not just control; it is more than that. It is co-ordination—a co-ordination that attracts many people, including people from abroad, to the sport.
  Even given that success story, however, the major players in the sport—especially the organisation charged with co-ordinating so much in racing, the British Horseracing Board—recognise that many things must change, and that further significant improvements must be made. That is why the BHB recently conducted a root-and-branch review of racing that recommends many changes. As the chairman of the BHB, Peter Savill, in his recent AGM speech said:
  "The Racing Review Committee has proposed some significant changes to the racing product and the racing experience which will improve the integrity of the sport, establish a true meritocracy, strengthen National Hunt racing, put British breeding on a more level playing field with its Irish and French counterparts and increase consumer interest in the sport."
  That demonstrates that no one in the sport wants to stand still; but the OFT recommendations threaten to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The chaos that would result from the absence of central co-ordination of the fixture list and an inability to set the rules and orders for the sport centrally could not possibly bring benefits to the consumer. It would be quite the reverse: in the absence of any ability to bring together the different strands of racing—all the disparate groups I mentioned earlier—and to set rules and impose discipline, the integrity of the sport would suffer. How can that act as a protection for the consumer?
  The basis of the OFT's preliminary ruling is chapter I of the Competition Act 1998, which—here I quote from a letter I received from the OFT, dated 7 August—
  "prohibits agreements that appreciably restrict competition in the UK, unless they deliver countervailing economic benefits".

  1125
  I could respond to that in a number of ways. First, we are talking about a sport. No one has to engage in it, watch it or bet on it; that is all done voluntarily. It is not like buying bread, milk, potatoes or other essentials. This is a national sport, which should surely be governed by national rules. If I watch my home team, Bolton Wanderers, play football, they will be using the same rules that would be used were I unfortunate enough to have to watch Arsenal or Leeds.
  Secondly, does anyone really believe that consumers would like to see not one national sport called horse racing, but a number of different race courses all with different rules and standards of discipline, with no co-ordination of the types of races run or horses attracted, all—as minnows—having to sell their own picture rights and data rights to the big bad powerful bookmakers? Are individual race courses, or consumers, likely to benefit from such a free-for-all? The chief executive of the Racecourse Association, Stephen Atkins—whom I met earlier this week—does not think so. Might not the OFT break down the supposed power of the BHB, as many people in the sport fear, only for that democratic body to be replaced, in effect, by an undemocratic cartel formed within the bookmaking industry?
  Responsible bookmakers, many of whom are good friends of mine, do not want the OFT investigation to result in chaos. Indeed, a senior executive at Ladbrokes told me that recently, and it was Peter Jones, the chairman of the Tote, who helped me to put together this speech. I pay tribute the likes of Ladbrokes and the Tote for sponsoring so many races, most famously the Tote Cheltenham gold cup, which takes place in my constituency each year.
  Thirdly, such central co-ordination of fixtures and rules, and of the collective selling of data rights, therefore delivers the countervailing economic benefits that the OFT requires. Fourthly, such central co-ordination protects the sport's integrity, which, where betting is involved, is crucial to its survival and ability to prosper. A free-for-all in the control of fixtures and rules could not possibly enhance the sport's integrity, so how could that benefit the consumer, whom the OFT is supposed to exist to protect?
  As I have said, there is total recognition and acceptance throughout the sport that things must change, and many proposals are on the table. But changes brought about by heavy-handed demands from the OFT will seriously weaken, rather than strengthen, the sport as a consumer product. Virtually everyone throughout the industry fears, for example, for the future of national hunt racing if the OFT's proposals bring about the free-for-all in which they would surely result. Smaller tracks in particular would suffer. Such tracks, while being valuable sources of great entertainment in themselves, are also feeder courses—training courses, perhaps—for larger ones such as Cheltenham and Aintree. So could the wrong kind of OFT-inspired changes to the sport signal the end of the Cheltenham gold cup and the grand national, and could such changes bring about a shift away from racing on turf and towards racing on sand? Somehow, a dirt track would not fit too comfortably with the dresses and hats
  1126
  at Royal Ascot; it would seem rather incongruous. Such things are unthinkable but quite possible, as is significant damage to the rural economy.
  So what can be done? I suggest that the OFT treat this investigation very sensitively. It should recognise that it is dealing with a sport, not a large and dominant business. It should recognise that British horse racing is respected and followed throughout the world, and it should attempt to understand racing's characteristics, which play such a vital role in holding the sport together. I therefore ask the OFT not to make heavy-handed proposals, but to recognise the changes already being proposed within the sport itself, and to work with its representatives, rather than against them. Only by doing that can consumers be both protected and well-served.
  I hope that the OFT will be sensible, but if its final proposals are, in the Government's view, potentially damaging to the sport, I ask the Minister to use his powers under the 1998 Act to intervene. Clause 3(3) of the 1998 Act states:
  "The Secretary of State may at any time by order amend Schedule 3, with respect to the Chapter 1 prohibition, by … providing for one or more additional exclusions".
  I suggest that sport should be such an exclusion.
  I have to make this request of the Minister because it is impossible to question or talk to the OFT in this Chamber. It appears to be empowered to make decisions that could have profound effects on a national sport, and thereby on many people's livelihoods, without any reference to Parliament. It is therefore only reasonable for me to ask the Minister to intervene, if it is likely that the OFT will not take a reasonable and sensible approach.
  There is a precedent for such action. For example, the Secretary of State provided for an exemption for public transport ticketing schemes, which came into force on 1 March 2001. Furthermore, the Government are looking sympathetically at the position on the exclusive pool betting licence as operated by the Tote. Quite rightly, they are likely to allow the Tote to retain it when the organisation is privatised, as the Government have pledged. I applaud the Government for their sensitivity in that respect because it is in the interests of racing and the consumer that the Tote retains its exclusive pool betting licence—and even other bookmakers agree. I am asking the OFT to show the same sensitivity and flexibility in dealing with racing as a whole. In the absence of such a compromise, I ask the Minister to exercise his powers as allowed under the 1998 Act.
  British horse racing is a national sport admired by millions of people in this country and abroad. It is part of our heritage. Last weekend I had the pleasure of attending the 227th running of the St. Leger at Doncaster. The traditions of the sport are an integral part of it. Disraeli once described himself as a progressive Conservative, and I suggest that evolution, not revolution, is the way to improve the running, integrity and therefore the performance of horse racing to the benefit of all who take part in it.
  The OFT has the responsibility of safeguarding the interests of consumers, and I am asking the OFT to do precisely that. I am also asking the Minister to ensure that it is done in such a way that it benefits consumers

  1127
  rather than risk destroying the sport that so many of us love. Horse racing is the sport of kings, but it is also the sport of many ordinary people who are depending on us to get this right.
  3.41 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on securing the debate. It takes some ability and skill—and a little luck—to get an Adjournment debate. The particular case that he has engineered reminds me of Napoleon when he was promoting various officers. He turned to those recommending various promotions and said that he did not want to know how good an officer was, only whether he was lucky. On that basis, my hon. Friend, in securing a debate in which we have up to two and half hours instead of the usual half an hour, would be a general in Napoleon's army.
  I do not wish to gallop too heavily—if I can be forgiven the pun—over ground that my hon. Friend has already correctly and eloquently gone. I speak as joint chairman of the all-party racing and bloodstock group and we know that many people are deeply concerned about what could happen as a result of the OFT investigation into racing.
  My hon. Friend referred to various factions within racing. The Minister, who is coming fairly fresh to the matter, will have gathered that those factions do not go warmly hand in hand on every issue on every occasion. Sometimes the hands are warmly round the throats of the others, but they all realise now that if they do not work together, the game is over.
  There is no need for me to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a race course without any horses does not really have a point; and it is no good having a horse without a race course for it to compete on. Without trainers it will all get a bit difficult; jockeys might be needed as well. The idea that race courses can somehow run their own fixture lists and do their own data rights is a joke because there has to be some centralised arrangement whereby the information gets out to the public. Why? Because racing depends for a large percentage of its income on betting. Whatever we do, we must ensure that we do not upset the current arrangements. I am afraid that the OFT is approaching the issue as a bunch of innocents who have gone charging in. What upsets me is how the OFT seems to have started from a preconceived position; it now faces the embarrassment of trying to get out of it.
  I shall quote briefly from a letter from the OFT, dated 8 May, to the chief executive of the Racecourse Association. It states:
  "The OFT will be examining the scope for further competition within racing as part of its remit to ensure that markets are working well… considering… how often they race… the type of racing… the prizes they can offer."
  It continues:
  "At this stage, the OFT anticipates that increased competition would potentially benefit racegoers, punters and race horse owners. And courses should benefit from greater freedom."
  The OFT assumes that change will happen and that the automatic consequence of its report will be a benefit to racing, but I suggest that the opposite is true.
  1128
  It would be heresy to suggest that anything was greater than British racing, but in this day and age of world gambling—when information can travel round the world at the flick of a finger—the potential income is enormous. It pains me to say it but I congratulate the Government on the suggestion of a gambling Bill. If we could get a review of gambling right, the revenue for this country—which, after all, has lost its shipbuilding and other industries—from worldwide gambling could be enormous.
  Why would people gamble on racing in Britain? After all, people can gamble by watching a television screen showing live races anywhere in the world. What makes British racing attractive? As my hon. Friend suggested, it is the integrity and honesty of British racing. Unless one is remarkably lucky or incredibly foolish, one does not expect to win money at racing. One expects to have some fun and occasionally come out ahead, and that is good. Before you took up your position of responsibility, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that even you had the odd shilling on a horse at Newmarket, although I do not expect you to confess to that from the Chair. We put our money on a race in Britain knowing that there is a better chance of it being a straight race—an honest contest—than anywhere else in the world. That is why huge amounts of money have already come to this country from the far east, where people are inveterate gamblers, and I want that to happen more and more.
  If we start to break up the central data rights, how will the information be transmitted round the world? Will the individual race courses have to obtain the data rights to transmit races? I do not think so. Instead, the UK would start to suffer, because it was not providing world coverage from a unified and central source. Racing is like a many-legged chair: if one kicks away one of the legs, the chair falls over. It is crucial that we get it right.
  My hon. Friend touched on the fact that racing is growing. More people are going racing than ever before, and more horses are being raced than ever before. Much of that is because the people who lead the racing industry at the moment have decided to move it forward into the modern market and the modern age. They are to be congratulated on that. They have not sat there, ossified and unchanging. They have been working at the problem.
  The OFT has never run a business. I am puzzled about why it should consider that it knows more about running the racing industry than those who are actively involved. The assumption appears to have been that increased competition would have a variety of effects. I spoke to the OFT, offering the all-party committee's help and evidence, because I recognised that there was a difficulty.
  The racing industry does not have independent participants. People are involved in race courses, horses, the British Horseracing Board or the Jockey Club, and therefore have their own factions. Answers from the industry therefore reflect a particular slant or colour. The all-party committee meets people from all sides of the industry, and we like to think that we view their presentations with a degree of independence.
  In response to the offer made by me and my cochairman, the OFT sent a letter to the effect that it would accept a written submission. We supplied that

  1129
  submission, which concluded with our strong opinion that the OFT's proposals could cause race courses to close. We also predicted a move towards what I call the barn principle evident in the US. There, trainers ensure that horses race on only one course during their racing lives. Watching American racing is, with a few exceptions, the equivalent of watching paint dry. Most races are run on dirt, and are held in only one direction around the track. There is little of the colour, excitement or variation that is attractive to the world gambling scene.
  We told the OFT that we foresaw the closure of a number of courses, and that the inevitable centralisation of racing activity around a few centres would reduce consumers' ability to attend meetings. I suggest that many hon. Members share that view, as does almost all the racing fraternity.
  The racing industry should not be put at risk. I therefore endorse the call for the Government to examine their existing powers to see whether changes could be made, and action taken, to rein in what is being considered and proposed. When I expressed extreme surprise that the OFT report should have appeared in the middle of the review being undertaken by the racing industry, I was told that the BHB had asked for it.
  When I contacted the BHB, I was told that it had wanted a reply a year ago. The board could not wait a year or more before starting its review, which is now under way, and it has already given presentations to the racing fraternity. I have a copy of its first presentation; it takes a comprehensive look at how racing can be made more exciting for all the participants, especially the public.
  Unless we want to close racecourses, reduce the number of horses in training and put our opportunities on the backburner, the Minister must take on board what is being said to him today.
  3.55 pm
  Chris Grayling: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, as well as for the good fortune of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) in securing it.
  The House will be aware that I represent what is, in my humble submission, the finest race course in the world, on Epsom downs; it is the home of the Derby Britain's greatest day out. Epsom is much more than a race course, however; it is a centre for training for people with various levels of success in the industry. It is thus an essential part of the whole racing world in this country.
  I want to touch on a few of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) raised about the threat posed by the OFT report to the development end of the training industry—not the big yards and the division one players, but people who play an important part in developing new horses for racing. I was worried when I read the OFT report on the future of horseracing. I thought back to a subject that the OFT touched on only a few months ago: community pharmacies. As in racing, the OFT saw a market where none exists and tried to create a sense of
  1130
  diverse market forces in a conventional industry. It tried to impose on the pharmacy world—as it is trying to impose on the racing world—the structures of the supermarket sector. Racing is not like that; it is a sport.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend referred to supermarkets, something that I did not mention as I thought there would not be enough time. Is there an analogy with the situation faced by farmers? These days, because farmers sell their milk, as individuals, to extremely powerful organisations they are impoverished. They claim that savings are not passed on to the consumers but are held up in the chain. Is there an analogy with what could happen in racing?
  Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend touches on an important point. If the proposals go through, it is difficult to imagine that they will not play into the hands of a small number of commercial interests, almost certainly in the betting fraternity. That is where the change will come.
  I strongly believe in the old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Racing is not broke; it may need to evolve and develop, as my hon. Friends pointed out, but it is not an unsuccessful industry. Terrible injustices are not happening. Racing is working pretty well and is an asset to the nation. The trouble is that when organisations such as the OFT start tinkering there are unintended consequences.
  In the early 1990s, for example, a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the pub and brewing industry, which was designed to improve consumer choice and competition, led directly to the disappearance of thousands of country pubs. Small local pubs kept going only because of the tie—that slightly anti-competitive arrangement—and when it disappeared, so did they. We are concerned that the same effect will be seen in racing.
  Racing does not involve only a small number of centres. Of course, I do not need to worry about Epsom. The race course pays for itself many times over on just one day a year. No doubt Cheltenham pays for itself in one week of the year. So the big racing centres—the international names—will survive and flourish, and it is arguable that they would probably do better if they had more meetings each year.
  Of course, racing is now a truly national sport. Small race courses are to be found in far flung parts of the country, where racing takes place on a wild winter's day. Those race courses are an integral part of the industry, but they are the ones that will disappear. Those meetings will not happen, and racing will be concentrated instead in a number of larger commercial centres and lost in many parts of the country. But this is not just about race courses; it is also about the training industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire made an extremely important point about the smaller courses serving effectively as a feeder network for the bigger meetings. When people buy their first horse, the smaller courses are where they go to race. They do not turn up at Royal Ascot for their first outing; they turn up on a Tuesday in February at Wetherby. That is where those people who dabble in racing for the first time—those who perhaps buy an eighth share in a

  1131
  race horse—go to see their horse run. The smaller, newer and developing trainers bring those horses into the industry and start to nurture them, and they hope ultimately to enjoy great success with them.
  One reason why I feel so strongly about the issue is that Epsom's training industry is in a particularly challenging situation at the moment. It has declined over a number of years, partly because of the value of the real estate that it sits on. Not surprisingly, it is very tempting for those sitting on land and owning big houses inside the M25 to sell them at a large profit, taking them out of the industry. A training industry that once, perhaps 30 years ago, trained 500 horses trains only about 200 today. I have been working with many people in the local racing industry to try to find a way to reverse that trend by bringing new life back into the training industry in Epsom.
  One of the things that I want to see is Epsom emerging as a training and development centre for trainers. We are talking about the possibility of setting up starter yards, where new trainers could lease blocks of 10 boxes, get into training for the first time with a few horses, begin to build a reputation and then move on—remaining in the area, we hope, but if not, going to another centre. But, of course, if the smaller parts of the racing calendar begin to be removed and the smaller courses start to be lost, the opportunity for the training industry in my area to build that starter and development role will be much diminished. The report concerns me greatly, as it seems to undermine what I hope will be an important part of the future of the training industry in Epsom.
  Mr. Page: Hon. Members are looking at someone who used to ride out, first lot, for an Epsom trainer a long time ago when the horses were bigger and stronger and I was lighter, and I can only endorse what my hon. Friend says. Does he share with me the worry that, if the OFT recommendations go through and the number of trainers reduces, there will be no starter races around the country and no room for the trainers whom he wants to bring into the business to bring in new horses? There will be fewer horses and we shall end up with a power play between those people with a lot of money to buy very expensive, very good horses, and the thrill of the sport, which runs right through to the bottom end, will disappear.
  Chris Grayling: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comments. To use an analogy, we are talking about the danger of creating a super league at the expense of the rest. There is no doubt that, if the top players in any sport are allowed to accumulate all the commercial benefits in that sport, the smaller players lose out.
  Other sports have governing bodies, set guidelines and negotiate common commercial relationships in television or in other ways, and they then redistribute that money across the whole sport. We have seen the impact on some of the lower division football clubs when those central arrangements break up. The reality is that if it were not for the work done by governing bodies of cricket, soccer and rugby to push money further down the line all around the country, local clubs arid local matches would disappear.
  1132
  So why should horse racing be any different? Why should we suddenly say, "Actually, it's just a big business, it's operating in an anti-competitive way, so we must tear up all the existing arrangements and create a free-for-all." It makes no sense. Would the Office of Fair Trading go round and say, for example, "We insist for reasons of competition that Rangers and Celtic should be allowed to join the Premiership"? Surely that is a decision for the footballing authorities. Are we going to say that racing should somehow have a different relationship to competition authorities, and that they should have power over what happens in racing as a sport, even though it is inconceivable that they could have similar powers in other sports? It makes no sense.
  There are other concerns. Both my hon. Friends have talked about the potential risks to national hunt racing. That would be a tragic loss, particularly in rural areas that will depend even more on local national hunt race courses when, as I fear that the Government want, the infrastructure of hunting disappears. That will cut a slice off the substance of those local economies. Were national hunt racing to go as well, which might be a consequence of the OFT's report, it would be even more damaging to those communities.
  This makes no sense. The OFT is trying to do something in an area where it does not belong. It is trying to create the sense that a market exists or should exist in an area which I do not believe is all about markets. It will take away a sport and pastime from many parts of this country and will concentrate money and resource in a small number of locations in the hands of big players, and the small people will lose out—the small emerging trainers, the local race courses, and perhaps even the small on-course bookies who will have fewer opportunities to do their business.
  What possible benefit could there be from the OFT looking after the interests of the big guys at the exclusion of the small guys in an area where it should not be in the first place? That is why this issue is so important, why it is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury secured this debate, and why it is appropriate and, I hope, essential—as I hope that the Minister realises—that he watches over the shoulders of the OFT and that he does not let this happen.
  4.7 pm
  Mr. George Osborne: Like my other hon. Friends, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on securing this debate, and on the good fortune of securing it on the day when the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill passed its Second Reading at remarkable speed.
  I must confess, as I do not write to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury when I do so, that I am an annual visitor to his constituency, and almost an annual visitor to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). Indeed, I am also a visitor to the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) and the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who has an excellent race course and arguably one that competes with Epsom, certainly in my book.

  1133
  I do not have a race course in my constituency, although I do have quite a few owners among my constituents, including Alex Ferguson, who is perhaps the most famous race horse owner at the moment—
  Chris Grayling: Notorious.
  Mr. Osborne: Or notorious, perhaps, as my hon. Friend suggests. I do not mind saying that, as he appeared all over my Labour opponent's leaflets during the last general election, and I am not here necessarily to defend his interests.
  I confess that I have a personal interest in racing. That is why, when I saw the opportunity to speak today, I took it. I come from a family that has been involved in racing. My grandmother had a full-page obituary in the Racing Post when she died, my family business sponsors a race at Goodwood every year, and my uncle runs a bookmaker. Although I have no pecuniary interest in racing or gambling, many members of my family do.
  I was alerted to the threat that the OFT report poses to British racing not by any of those family members—indeed, as half of them are in the betting industry, it would not have been in their interests—but by a lady called Mrs. Paton-Smith whom I sat next to at the Cheshire agriculture show in June this year. She is an owner, and she lives in the constituency of my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). Over lunch, she talked to me about the OFT report. I asked her to send me details, and she subsequently wrote to me enclosing details of what she feared the OFT report would do to the sport in which she participates.
  She wrote:
  "Without doubt this is the biggest threat to the conduct of racing that we can recall and we would be most grateful"—
  she was speaking for her husband as well—
  "if you agree, if you could lobby the Government to prevent such a scenario emerging."
  This debate represents a good opportunity to lobby the Government.
  As one who is uninitiated in the intricacies of how racing is organised, I must confess that I was initially sceptical of Mrs. Paton-Smith's complaint. As a Conservative, I believe in freer markets and competition in principle and am instinctively against monopoly and restrictive practices. If one examines the proposals in the Office of Fair Trading report, they are superficially attractive. They would allow race courses to set their own fixtures and permit data such as television images to be bought directly from race courses. They would provide that the collective selling of the rights of racing was not acceptable and say that race courses should be able to set their own race programmes and prize money.
  If one starts to consider the implications for the horse racing industry and looks under the surface of the OFT report to examine the unintended consequences that the changes might bring about, the full threat to racing becomes clear. My colleagues said that the OFT report would effectively dismantle one monopoly and replace it with an arguably more dangerous monopoly that would be run by the bookmaking industry, which is also my
  1134
  judgment. Rather than the British Horseracing Board setting fixture lists to ensure a balance of interests throughout the industry, the betting industry would effectively control which race courses were granted which fixtures, which races would be run and when they would be run. That is because, as Peter Savill, the chairman of the BHB said earlier this year, one can
  "count on 2 hands the number of fixtures that can take place profitably each year without bookmaker funding."
  One could probably count the Cheltenham gold cup and the Derby on those two hands but beyond that, as my hon. Friends said, hundreds of races would not be able to survive without the support of the bookmaking industry. The bookmaking industry is dominated by three bookmakers, and it would be able to pick and choose. New all-weather tracks are coming on line and there will be about 3,000 potential fixtures by 2005, but bookmaker demand for no more than about 1,500. The bookmaking industry would be in a strong position to pick the race courses at which its margins were greatest rather than those at which spectator enjoyment was greatest or that were most popular with sponsors or jumping enthusiasts. Let us be honest—I am not the MP for Lingfield—there might be a situation in which all-weather tracks ran races day and night at times that were convenient for punters in betting shops throughout the country. British racing would lose much of its character as a result. We would lose many of the listed races and much national hunt racing, which is such an important part of the rural economy and so important to rural parts of my constituency. As Peter Savill said in a speech that he made earlier this year:
  "The OFT thinks it is helping racecourses to operate as healthy commercial enterprises when in fact its strategy, if allowed to be implemented, will result in a deterioration in the financial position of every single racecourse and racecourse group—without exception."
  That represents a serious threat to the industry.
  There are alternative ways of dealing with some of the genuine conflicts of interest and problems that the OFT report identified. Indeed, the British Horseracing Board has made several proposals on changing its function, removing itself from commercial activity or creating a separate entity that would commercially promote racing and negotiate with bookmakers. Indeed, the board's racing review committee has come up with several imaginative proposals to improve the integrity of support, to establish a better meritocracy, to strengthen jumping and, importantly, to put British breeding on a level playing field with our Irish and French counterparts.
  In the past year, British racing has had record attendances, record prize money and a significant expansion of listed racings, for example. It has exciting plans for the future. Those of us who care about racing and enjoy going to race meets—even if we do not have a financial interest in racing or are involved in the industry—do not want the OFT report to wreck it.
  4.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on securing the debate, which is a continuation of Department of Trade and Industry questions this morning. I also congratulate the hon. Members for

  1135
  South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on making informed contributions, reflecting their constituency backgrounds and their interests in the well-being of the horse racing industry. The debate provides a welcome opportunity to address an issue that is undoubtedly of interest not just to people directly involved or employed in the sport, but to many of the industry's customers, especially the large number of people who attend meetings, who choose to back horses or who simply enjoy watching the sport at home.
  I would be the first to recognise that horse racing is much more than just a sport. It gives enjoyment and employment to many thousands of people in the UK and, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury emphasised, it is a significant contributor both directly and indirectly to the UK economy. Substantial further income and economic activity is generated by the betting industry, as well as related activities such as stables and stud farms, some of which attract significant overseas income, as has been mentioned.
  The sport today very much reflects the outcome of a continuing evolution, founded on its long and rich history. I hope that all parts of the sport continue to address and respond to changes in the surrounding world, as they have done in the past, because that is the best way to ensure the sport's future. I am not going to get involved in arguing about the best race course in the country, although if I did, I would add York to the list; nor am I going to get involved in discussing the merits of particular owners, especially as Sir Alex Ferguson is the manager of a team that I support.
  I have noted the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman and by others in correspondence and a variety of other ways. I am sure that the Office of Fair Trading will take account of those in its continuing investigation into the agreements. I fully understand the desire expressed in the Chamber and elsewhere to retain the essential character of the sport, but that must be balanced against the need for all sections of the business world to comply with the fair trading principles that underlie the competition legislation endorsed by the House. I must make it clear that under our framework of competition law, the decision on the matter is entirely for the Office of Fair Trading. It would be inappropriate for me as the Minister with responsibility for competition to intervene in its deliberations. Perhaps we should reflect on why we have reached this stage.
  For several years, the issue has received much media coverage, some of it alarmist—the "end of racing as we know it" scenario. I do not include Mr. Savill in that. I read his speech and heartfelt thoughts about what might happen to the industry. Some of the coverage has been confusing, so perhaps it is worth clearing the air by setting out the background and explaining briefly the Office of Fair Trading's role before explaining the role that falls to the DTI.
  To determine whether or not certain agreements complied with chapter I of the Competition Act 1998, a little over three years ago, on 28 June 2000, the British Horseracing Board and the Jockey Club notified a number of agreements to the OFT. For those less familiar with the detail of the 1998 Act, it might be helpful to summarise that chapter I expressly prohibits agreements that prevent, restrict or distort competition. The British Horseracing Board and the Jockey Club
  1136
  considered that those agreements, including the orders and rules of racing and general instructions, did not infringe chapter I and they sought a decision from the OFT granting negative clearance—in essence, seeking a clean bill of health for the agreements. In the event that clearance was not granted by the OFT, the parties sought exemption from the chapter I prohibition. It is worth stressing that the parties specified that the application was for a decision, not for guidance. When the OFT receives such a notification, it is its job to apply the Competition Act, no more, no less.
  The applicants are required to state which provisions or effects of agreements might raise questions of compatibility with the chapter 1 prohibition. The parties duly provided a list that included a provision that the OFT has provisionally—I stress "provisionally"—concluded is an infringement of the Competition Act and cannot be granted an exemption. The OFT has also found a number of other provisions within the orders, rules and general instructions that it has provisionally concluded infringe the Competition Act, and cannot be granted an exemption. The OFT has advised the applicants of its provisional conclusions and the theoretical next steps to give them a chance to make oral or written representations, for instance to correct any factual errors or misunderstandings in the provisional conclusions before it makes a decision on whether to proceed with a final infringement decision.
  I understand that the British Horseracing Board and the Jockey Club duly submitted a response to the OFT on 5 September. It is now for the OFT to consider those responses and determine whether or not to proceed with a final infringement decision. It is, however, worth noting that in such cases even after the OFT has issued a final infringement decision a full right of appeal would exist. It would therefore be open to the various industry respondents to challenge the decision. In such circumstances they would have a full right of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which would be able to consider the appeal and hear the case again on its merits.
  As for the role of the Department of Trade and Industry, I am sure that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury will understand that the matters being considered by the Office of Fair Trading fall within its ambit, so it would be inappropriate for me as a Minister with responsibility for competition to seek to intervene in its deliberations. However, the hon. Gentleman raised the Competition Act and the exemptions available to the Secretary of State. He cited the block on public transport ticketing schemes. I shall discuss this with him later, but my information is that that block exemption was made under section 9, not section 3, to which he referred.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: I would be delighted to meet the Minister to discuss that in more detail, but for the record, there are two ways in which exemptions can be granted under section 4—there are exemptions that the director of the OFT can recommend, but the Minister has the right to provide additional exclusions. My remarks may have led to confusion, but there are two ways in which items can be excluded from chapter I.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In the spirit of co-operation in which we have tried to proceed, we will look at that again, and I shall discuss it with him further.

  1137
  As a competition Minister, it is not my role to be involved in the OFT investigations. However, I shall look at the role of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and others, particularly the role of the Minister for Sport and Tourism, whose views are outlined in a letter to the hon. Gentleman. We must also ensure that the director general of fair trading is aware of the issues that have been raised in our debate, and we shall make sure that he is contacted.
  The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell talked about other sports and the way in which they operate. The sponsoring Department for the industry is DCMS—the Minister for Sport and Tourism has taken a particular interest in this issue, and it is right and proper that he does so within the framework of his Department. I am in contact with him, and shall write to him about today's debate and make sure that he is fully aware of Members' concerns. The issue is of major significance to the industry, as horse racing is enjoyed, as has been said, by vast numbers of people, whatever their background, in every part of the country.
  1138
  The OFT must conclude its deliberations, and the industry will have the opportunity to put its case. I am sure that hon. Members will continue to make their views known to me and to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism. It is important that the right decision is reached in the framework of the competition regimes that we have introduced, and that we secure the industry's future.
  The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire spoke about the warring factions in the horse racing industry. I am aware of that from other sources. The various factions should realise that it is important that they come together. I believe the review will achieve that. We want a vibrant industry and fair competition. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my comments. We will wait to see what transpires and make sure that all the relevant bodies have the information and the serious thoughts that hon. Members have presented. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for raising the matter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Four o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

Higher Education
[Relevant documents: The Future of Higher Education-Fifth Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 425–1, and the Government response thereto, Cm 5932.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this debate on the report of the Select Committee on Education and Skills on the White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education".
As most of us know, the Select Committee system is very important. I believe that it involves some of the best activities that we parliamentarians indulge in. It is a great privilege to be the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee. Its members are a good team, and we pride ourselves on the quality of our reports, particularly the one we are debating today.
Some of our colleagues may not know that if one wants to secure a debate of this nature, one must go to the Liaison Committee, which consists of the Chairmen of all the Select Committees, and fight for it. I was allocated a day to debate higher education, but the Government subsequently postponed the White Paper's publication considerably, and we had to suffer the indignity of the Government stealing our debate for their purposes. By being dogged, we managed to get it back, which we are pleased about. It was hard fought for.
We believe that the report is one of our best, although we are proud of all of them. The Government's response was disappointing, but we have seen some movement since they published that response. I will reveal how we reached our conclusions and recommendations.
Select Committees work in a particular way, and that involves taking evidence. In our higher education investigation, we asked for evidence and invited people to give oral evidence. We assiduously sought comment from all the interested parties. Anyone interested in higher education could write to us. Indeed, when some higher education institutions did not respond, we wrote and wrote again to ensure that none was left out. When there was insufficient time to hear all the oral evidence that we would have liked to hear, we got on trains and went to institutions such as the universities of Edinburgh, Belfast, Oxford and Cambridge, sometimes as a whole Committee, and sometimes individually to get a fair reflection. We did that work because we wanted to find out what those involved in higher education thought of the White Paper.
We were so assiduous because we believed that the development of higher education is at a pivotal point. We believe that we have an opportunity to ensure the
312WH
right quantity and quality of investment in education, and that there would be serious consequences for the nation if that opportunity were missed.
In the report summary, we stated:
"we examine the proposals in the White Paper The Future of Higher Education and the implications of the large investment in higher education over the next three years, with spending rising from around £7.5 billion in 2002–03 to almost £10 billion in 2005–06—a real terms increase of more than 6 per cent. each year."
We believed that our aim was
"to make a positive contribution to improving the Government's White Paper."
We also said:
"Universities are vital to the future successful development of the potential of individuals and society as a whole. They are at the very heart of the maintenance of an intellectually vigorous and civilised society. They are also essential to the future prosperity of our nation."
Too many Governments and politicians tend to emphasise the second and not the first of those priorities. Higher education is about the maintenance of an intellectually vigorous and civilised society. Of course, it is also about the future prosperity of our economy and our country.
We reminded the Government that universities in the United Kingdom are basically very successful. If one looks at the spending pattern over recent years, one wonders how we have maintained a higher education system renowned for its quality. There is no question but that it is so renowned: we can judge that from who wants to come here to study. Most people in the world, when they are choosing somewhere to study at undergraduate or postgraduate level, choose the United Kingdom. Others might query whether the Ivy league universities in the United States are considered. However, the Ivy league is a small pro portion of 3,000 higher education institutions there, and a very small proportion of those are attractive to incoming students from all over the world.
Our universities appeal across the piece. If anyone is of the view that it is only the likes of Oxford, Cambridge, the London School of Economics and Warwick that attract foreign students, they should dismiss that idea from their mind. Let us look at the facts. As we increased our knowledge and took evidence for the investigation, we found how little was known, and how many misconceptions there were about the nature of British higher education. It is still of high quality. We believe that we uncovered the secret of British higher education—its unique selling point, to use a commercial term—and that is excellence. That excellence is founded on the link between research and teaching in the same institution.
Running through our report was the view that the Government did not fully understand that this country's higher education system will be put in peril if we start to think that it is convenient to have some teaching universities and some research universities. The real strength of our system makes it much finer and more attractive than those of continental Europe, where so much undergraduate teaching is divorced from research; research has been spun off into doctoral and post-doctoral research institutes, and undergraduate teaching takes place in large classes and lecture groups with little personal tuition and contact, and with higher drop-out rates and poor retention.

313WH
The United Kingdom has not gone down that route, although that is surprising if one looks at the 1990s and the disaster of funding in higher education. I do not want to make any political points, but the previous Administration reduced funding in higher education by something like 36 per cent. At the same time there was a vast expansion in higher education—and let us welcome that fact—but it was done very much on the cheap. It was up to the incoming Government in 1997 to put that right. They were quite slow to do so—let us be honest about that—but they had different priorities in education. The Government came in on a slogan of "education, education, education". Let us give credit where it is due: from 1997 to 2003, school capital increased by 80 per cent., for secondary education it increased by 69 per cent. and for under-fives by 60 per cent. Overall school spending has increased by 35 per cent. Even further education and adult education has had an increase of 38 per cent. By contrast, higher education has increased by 6 per cent. That puts matters in context.
To be fair, I shall mention the White Paper's foreword's reference to a much greater expansion in the next three years, from £7.5 billion to £10 billion—a real terms increase of 6 per cent. per year. However, it is important not only to put the quality of British higher education in context, but to explain the background. There has been a long period of famine, but with a great expansion in numbers, and there is no doubt that whatever party came to power in 1997 needed to make a choice about what was to happen to the world of higher education, on which so much of our country's future—its economy and society—depends.
We found some good things and some bad in the White Paper. However, we found something else as we took evidence over many weeks from Ministers, though since the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education is new, we did not have an opportunity to grill him—his turn will come. We met the Secretary of State and many leading educationists. We found that the priorities were not all in one area. From the newspapers, one would think that the White Paper and our report were about only one issue—student finance. That is not so. A much broader brush is being applied. The document is about the future of higher education across the piece.
The people whom we interviewed or who communicated with the Committee seemed united by the question of research. The White Paper contains a commitment to a greater focus on and concentration of research in a few institutions. To be fair, the Government did not take the most extreme view, which is associated with the rector of Imperial college, London, Sir Richard Sykes. He is a fine man whom I have known for years, and who comes from Huddersfield. He takes a robust view of the future of higher education. I asked him whether he meant that he wanted a concentration of research in a handful of universities. He said yes. I asked whether he meant a handful, rather than five, six, seven or eight. No, he wanted five.
Many members of the Committee were worried about the notion of such a concentration of research, which would mean its being mainly in London and the south-
314WH
east. There would be no regional spread, which would be of great concern to the many of us who want a vigorous regeneration of the regions and know how important higher education is to that.
There is a belief in the Government that greater concentration of research is the way to go. We said that they should think again, and we thought that their response to us was a little insipid. We made our case very strongly, and they did not really give an inch. We all know that there is an argument for higher concentration of research into big science, but only a few universities have the capacity to be in the big science game. Of course, good funding is necessary for those universities. However, there is much else that is important. Evidence that we took, even from the university with the smallest research budget, led us to a certain feeling about the matter. The vice-chancellor of the university of East Anglia made a relevant point.
Dr. Ian Gibson: A fine man.
Mr. Sheerman: Indeed, he is, and my hon. Friend says so for obvious reasons. A representative of a fine university was speaking up for the Anglia polytechnic university and saying that it has an extremely small research budget. However, it is important both psychologically and in that it keeps the flame of research alight. One can list universities that receive little research funding from the Government, but to which it is very important indeed.
To reintroduce—almost by the back door—a binary system of universities that are no longer deemed to be capable of research would be dangerous, particularly taken with the fact that one of the wonderful things about higher education in Britain in recent years has been its degree of turbulence. There is movement; we have a league system and institutions can move both up and down, as evidenced by The Sunday Times ranking of universities last Sunday in which York university was sixth and deemed the university of the year. Think of where York, Warwick or Bath—and any number of institutions that have developed into major players in research—started. Some universities are focused and some are not, on the big, big science game, but there has been a refreshing shake-up. On the other hand, we might also observe that universities that have rested on their laurels have sunk down the ratings.
Dr. Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the most salient discoveries in science have been made at universities that are not in what he describes as the big league for science? One thinks of DNA and its forensic uses at universities such as Leicester, which is not in the top six, but is full of individuals who are exciting, enthusiastic and pretty bright.
Mr. Sheerman: I agree with my fellow Select Committee Chairman—the Select Committee on Science and Technology in his case—who knows a great deal about the subject and is a fine researcher. He will agree about getting the balance, keeping the flame alight and enjoying the mobility of a league system at the same time as preserving high investment in big science where such capacity is needed. There is nothing wrong with the Government's arguments about clustering and co-

315WH
operation. The message from the Committee was, "If you believe in investment in big science, invest in it, but do not rob Peter to pay Paul."
On funding, the Government told us that they were confident in what they were doing and did not believe that we were right. That was a disappointment. However, according to press reports of summer meetings of the Higher Education Funding Council for England and others, there is more refreshing news. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says, because one senses that, perhaps, the Government have listened to the vice-chancellors, the Russell group and the vast majority of those who gave evidence to the Committee and have realised that the right course might be to achieve a balance that is slightly different from that in the White Paper.
An important area, on which we spent some time, was the Government's attitude to pay. That was where we felt that, to put it politely, the Government were using weasel words. They know that if a certain percentage of gross domestic product is put into higher education it should be used to pay higher salaries. If it is not put in, that cannot happen. One of our findings was that salaries in higher education had been too low for too long. All the evidence demonstrated that it is particularly acute in two areas: keeping bright young men and women doing their PhDs and encouraging them to stay on to become academics. During that transition period and in the first five to eight years of a career, salaries were very poor indeed. That cannot continue without an overall decline in the quality of the teachers and researchers entering higher education. We stated strongly that universities were their staff—the teachers and researchers—who must be looked after better.
The average salary of a school teacher is about £25,000, and it is about £23,000 for a university teacher. This is an interesting state of affairs. I told the Association of University Teachers, of which I am, vestigially, still a member, that I welcome its public spiritedness, because it does not really believe in any source of income for higher education other than from the income tax payer, but I left my profession in higher education in 1979 and there has, since then, been no increase in pay in real terms. I suggested that that was not quite the success that some university teachers might have wanted. Low pay in universities is no good to anyone, and it is not good enough for the Government to say that it is up to the institutions to decide how much they pay. With a salary increase of only 6 per cent., a vice-chancellor knows the limitations on the university's ability to pay, so the Government must accept responsibility and offer decent pay to the men and women who run our universities.
Dr. Gibson: I could say that the thing to do is to become an MP, as one would almost double one's salary, but that may be too crude a solution. Would my hon. Friend apply his comments not only to full-time academic staff, but to the men and—mainly—women in universities on short-term contracts, who sometimes have 20 such contracts in their academic lifetime and who suffer great uncertainty about whether the job will
316WH
continue from one year to another? Some universities have 40 per cent. of their research staff on such contracts. What is my hon. Friend's view about that?
Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend knows my view, although the Select Committee did not take evidence on the point. I am not against a balance between short-term and longer-term contracts—universities have always had short-term contracts for certain purposes—but things have gone too far in the wrong direction. I mostly agree with my hon. Friend.
I hope that the Minister will return to the subject of university pay. It is not good enough to say that universities have expanded since 1997 but that there is no shortage of applications. There are shortage subjects at university. I believe, although I am willing to be corrected, that not a single UK student is studying for an economics PhD in the UK. That is astonishing. It is very difficult to get teachers for shortage subjects.
I am a governor at the London School of Economics. Things may be all right for institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge and several others, which have the capacity to pay the market rate for whatever professor they need. It is not all right, however, that a large number of other people are working at a much lower rate of pay.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend talks about shortage subjects, which is a matter of concern, especially when one considers national needs for educational skills. Does he agree that there is a role for Government in trying to decide the proportion of students who should study particular subjects where there is a national shortage and where it is very important that we keep abreast of the rest of the world?
Mr. Sheerman: I agree with my hon. Friend. He and I have spent much time discussing these issues, and we agree on many of them.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Was there any evidence of a decline in quality of teaching or of educational outcomes in areas in which we identified a shortage of teachers or low pay as a problem?
Mr. Sheerman: Yes. When we took evidence and, more valuably, made visits, either individually or as a team, vice-chancellors would flag up the fact that although they had managed up to that point, there was fear of the next step. Many established university personnel are retiring—it is a generational thing. We are not worried about professorial salaries, but the message that I got when I met the Russell group was that we must get young men and women in, and keep them in the profession for the first five to eight years. There was concern about quality and how it would not be maintained unless something was done.
In relation to foundation degrees, we were rather disturbed by what the Minister with responsibility for higher education at the time said to the Committee and what she said outside, and by what the Government said in the White Paper on higher education, which seemed to link the expansion of higher education and their target of 50 per cent. with foundation degrees. We welcome foundation degrees because they offer an interesting and useful range of qualifications to young

317WH
and older people. However, linking the two—the increase to 50 per cent. through foundation degrees only, which vice-chancellors told the Committee was an instruction—would give foundation degrees a bad name. What will happen if, as the demand for university places grows naturally, people apply for an honours degree in whatever subject and are told, "No, no, you can only do a two-year foundation degree, because there's a cap"?
That point led us on to some interesting work. Some of the evidence given to the Committee on what people thought about the 50 per cent. target was interesting. Much was made of the target, but, interestingly enough, we have heard more recently about the Government's response. They are not walking away, but softening the importance or lowering the profile of the 50 per cent. target. That surprises me, because there is no doubt that recent research by the institute 'or higher education research at Oxford has shown just through demographics that there will be another 150,000 students queuing up to enter university by 2010. Although that institute is not, as far as I know, a political institute, it seems to believe that the reforms and educational investment lower down are working, but that another 100.000 people, at the minimum, will be coming through, fully qualified, to enter university.
Quite honestly, given the evidence that the Committee took, there is no doubt that simply sitting on one's hands and letting nature take its course will lead to 50 per cent. being achieved There has been discussion about that arbitrary figure, but thank goodness larger numbers of people can benefit from higher education in this modern age, in which, as the evidence we took showed time and again, graduate-type skills will be needed. That is the truth of the matter.
There is a fair degree of ignorance on both sides of the House about the statistics and the facts. I always point out that in my constituency about 18 per cent. would have gone to university. The average throughout the country in 1975 was only 4 per cent., but now it is 16 per cent. We have to pinch ourselves a bit. When people talk about 50 per cent., they ask, "Does more mean worse?", and, "Are we going to have enough plumbers and electricians?" At the last count, however, 84 per cent. of the student population of Huddersfield and 86 per cent. in the country at large were down to be plumbers and electricians.
There is room for millions of people to realise their potential through higher education. I have never believed that people in higher education do not merit it. My personal view is that such statements are absolute nonsense. We should look at the figures—not for our constituencies but for each local authority. It is salutary that, apart from London and the south-east, no one gets 25 per cent. That raises questions, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education may not like the answer. We could ask whether only the taxpayer will pay for expansion in higher education, but most people in this country never benefited from higher education; they were not offered interest-free loans, and many of them left school at 16.
That brings me nicely to the last part of my speech, which I suppose is the most controversial. We tried to be helpful to the Government about student finance. I can
318WH
nail one myth. Some excellent journalists work in the education sector, and some journalists outside the education sector write some pretty awful news stories about education. The story that we had recommended top-up fees of £5,000 rather than £3,000 was nonsense.
We were interested in what makes a market. On the one hand, we said that it would be wrong for the Government to impose a market, if they chose to have flexible fees, by saying what fees should be charged. However, the evidence showed that there is high probability that if £3,000 were decided upon, most universities would charge £3,000. That is the fact of the matter. The evidence was that £5,000 might have made a market, but not £3,000; and I still believe that to be the case.
Dr. Gibson: Did my hon. Friend include in that market the variation in fees between courses and universities, or did he assume that if a fee were going to be charged it would be £5,000 or nothing? What is the Committee's position on variable fees?
Mr. Sheerman: The Committee does not have a view; most of the universities that gave evidence were uncomfortable with the thought of charging different fees for different subjects. The general impression was that they would go for £3,000, but other members of the Committee may want to comment on that.
Mr. David Chaytor: Is it not the case that fees are charged in almost every other area of our education system? That is so in the private sector for secondary and primary education, for part-time degree courses and postgraduate degree courses, and particularly in the further education sector. The principle of differential fees both between and within institutions has been accepted for half a century. Why should it be so different for full-time undergraduate degrees?
Mr. Sheerman: That is a good point, but my hon. Friend knows what evidence we heard. We did not make a recommendation on that aspect. I have taken a number of interventions and gone on for far too long, but I want to wind up with two points.
The push of our evidence on student fees was that we believe that the Government could maintain an income from student fees and also be fairer to poorer students. We took evidence from Professor Nick Barr and others who suggested various ways of doing that. As an illustration, we suggested charging interest instead of having interest-free loans, which are a large subsidy in the region of £ 1.2 billion. In the main, better-off students and their families benefit from that in interest-free loans. The apprentice in my constituency who left school at 16 and started a business did not receive the investment of £25,000 available for going on to higher education. He did not receive an interest-free loan when he wanted to employ people; he had to go to the bank. We suggest that some of the interest on the loans could pay for more generous bursaries and maintenance grants for poorer students.
Our remit was not to challenge the Government on whether education fees should be paid or whether they should be flexible, but to explain the repercussions of

319WH
their policies and to make helpful suggestions for helping the people who traditionally have not gone on to higher education.
The Select Committee has worked during the past two years to inquire into access to higher education, retention of people in higher education and finance for higher education. We accepted and welcomed the direction in which the Government were moving, but we believe that they could provide enhanced and better targeted support for those from low-income families. We gave an illustration of one way in which that could be done. We also suggested a change of attitude to the £1,200 when it becomes £3,000 and that all of it could be remitted for poorer students. That is another possibility.
We welcomed the abolition of up-front fees so that higher education is free at the point of entry. That seems to be a good direction in which to go. As we all know, there are no fees under the 2006 proposals for students coming into higher education.
I must make two small points because they are important. We did not find the case proven for the access regulator. Our previous work had assured us that the benchmarking system of the Higher Education Funding Council for England was sufficient. The Government criticised us because we criticised them for a tendency towards micromanagement of higher education. They deny that they are keen on micromanagement, but some would say that the access regulator is an example of micromanagement. It suggests that the universities cannot be trusted to respond to HEFCE benchmarking, even when it seems that matters are moving in the right direction using the HEFCE benchmarking process, and we thought that it was unnecessary to have an access regulator. Certainly, the evidence from the universities shows that most of them did not like it very much.
Finally, on micromanagement, there is always a tendency for Governments to micromanage and we said clearly what many hon. Members on both sides of the House tend not to want to hear. There is no doubt and there is wide and historic evidence that the more a higher education institution is dependent on Government whim and money, the less independent it is and the more dependent it is on its paymaster. We thought that that was bad. Most of the evidence shows—this is reflected in our report—that it is not good if a university must go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a begging bowl. There will be fat years and thin years, and we have just come through the long, thin years of the 1990s. Does any one want to return to them?
When we visited Queen's university, Belfast and Edinburgh university—the visit to Edinburgh was an individual one, and the Select Committee went to Belfast—it was interesting to hear how debate had changed in Scotland and Northern Ireland shortly after devolution. In Northern Ireland, the original view was for a zero increase in the higher education budget in the first year. People were quite shocked when senior staff said that it would be very nice to have an independent source of income for the institution. Some universities in Scotland have suddenly realised that they may be left behind in the research ratings—the capacity to carry out high-level research—in their competition with English universities.
320WH
Some colleagues do not like to hear that most members of the Select Committee have been very much convinced during our four inquiries by the argument for an independent source of income, however it is arrived at, that gives independence to higher education. I hope that the Minister addresses that point. Members of the Select Committee believe in the Dearing principles, as he and the Government have said that they do. The people who benefit from higher education should pay for it in part. That includes society through the taxpayer—as I said, 84 per cent. have not been to university—and the individual, who will have a very much better life, and not just in terms of income. We always talk about 50 per cent. more income, but those people will also be able to enjoy life to the full and to realise their full potential.
Dearing also mentioned employers. We had not thought that through much, but we were darned if we would not include something about an employers' contribution. The response to the Select Committee contained some weasel words. It said that there are all sorts of grants to encourage employers to invest in research and development. However, that was not our point. If it is fair that all three should pay, why should there not be a levy on companies that do not spend X per cent. on R and D? The money would go into a fund to support R and D work at universities. We want an evenhanded approach. If we accept the Dearing principles, which, according to the Government's response, they do, we must accept them all.
With the interventions, I have gone on far too long. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may be helpful if I point out the conventional format of these debates. The debate may proceed until 5.30, but the convention is that the three Front-Bench winding-up speeches commence at 5 o'clock. That knowledge may help Members to gauge their presentation.
3.12 pm
Mr. Michael Portillo: As someone who has never participated in a higher education debate, I feel rather fortunate to be participating in this one, and I am particularly fortunate to be able to speak so early in the proceedings. There are many experts on the subject among those who sit on the Labour Benches, those who sit on the Conservative Benches and those who were on the Conservative Benches but are now on the Labour Benches; they have a great deal of knowledge of the subject.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and all the members of the Select Committee on the report. The hon. Gentleman said that it was one of their better reports, which I thought was a rather half-hearted NA, ay of commending his own report. I would go much further and say that the report is not bad at all.
I shall not detain the Chamber for any length of time but more or less confine myself to a single point on the first issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, which is the issue of research funds, specifically the concentration or dilution of such funds. I speak as the Member for the constituency of Kensington and Chelsea, which contains Imperial college. The rector of Imperial college, Sir Richard

321WH
Sykes, was one of the witnesses to appear before the Committee. He made his case strongly. I am worried that the Chairman of the Select Committee chose to describe his intervention as an extreme one. I do not think that that word is appropriate. Sir Richard has a strong point of view.
Mr. Sheerman: Robust.
Mr. Portillo: He has a robust point of view. Politics is the language of priorities—or whatever the phrase may be—and it is important when spending public money to spend it as well as we possibly can. If an individual with a great deal of experience—I shall go into that a little more in a moment—says that the reality staring us in the face is the need to concentrate our money to get the best effect from it, we should regard that not as an extreme position but as a challenging one. We should think very carefully about it.
The Select Committee's report is very good, but the section on research is not the best part of it. One reason I have attended today's debate is that when I read the report, it struck me that if one interviews several witnesses from around the country on a subject such as research concentration, a bias will of course be built into the sample. If one interviews a lot of people from institutions located all over the place, the majority of them will of course be against concentration. I came along today because I did not want the Imperial college point to go by default, and I want to ensure that it appears in the record of proceedings.
The Select Committee report is fair enough to quote Sir Richard Sykes extensively, and I shall quote him now so that we can get to the essence of the case. He said:
"If we want to have, in a competitive world that is being driven today basically by science and technology, half a dozen top universities in this country, that can compete because they have excellence, not just in a few groups but across the whole panoply of scientific excellence, so you have got the critical mass that helps these people work together to address some of the world's biggest problems, then we can afford only a few of them."
That is an interesting and well-considered point in which every sub-clause is important. If we are to compete in the world, if we are to have the concentration of people to make things happen and to give us critical mass, and if that excellence is to be not only in one or two subjects but across the whole field of science, as a country we can afford only a few universities. That point is very well stated.
Despite the report's excellence, the Committee did not argue itself out of the Sykes proposition. I have considered its arguments carefully. It states that there is already quite a lot of concentration, so why should there be any more; but that is not an argument and does not excuse us from considering whether the concentration in the past has been a good thing and whether greater concentration would be an even better thing.
Before we get too carried away, I should say that according to a letter I have received from Imperial college, the concentration has so far involved the reallocation of £20 million, which is 2 per cent. of the Higher Education Funding Council research grant—we are discussing rather a small sum. The Minister nods, but I do not know whether he will nod at the next sentence. Imperial college goes on to say:
322WH
"A much larger redistribution of the teaching grant (of some £217 million or 6.7 per cent.) passed without much public comment. Overall, Imperial College benefited by £3.6 million from the re-distribution of the £20 million for research, but lost £2 million from its teaching grant this year and an estimated £1.5 million next year".
It has not been an enormous switch.
I listened with great attention to the hon. Member for Huddersfield. He made many good points, but I must say that I did not agree with most of them. For example, he said that we have a great deal of excellence in our universities and that we should be very proud of how we are competing. I will not be unpatriotic and contradict that head on, but how our universities are doing at any level is not a cause for complacency. It is a matter of constant competition. At the top level, I am not at all convinced that the likes of Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial college and University college London can be regarded as being in the same league as Harvard, Yale and other global competitors.
In most places, there is not a particularly strong connection between research and undergraduate teaching. I am, of course, being driven towards elitist arguments, which is a charge that I can take on the chin. The attempt to make equal that which is unequal in the field of higher education has been the bane of higher education policy in recent years. That is not a party political point because there was much of that policy under the last Conservative Government.
One cannot say that the education of all undergraduates, whatever their prospects may be, is strongly connected to a research presence in the university. It may be that some undergraduates who have the potential to go on to do very important work in a particular field, even in their undergraduate years, would benefit from a connection with research, but one cannot make the point in a more generalised way, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield has.
Mr. Chaytor: I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the concentration of research. Does he accept that his argument about the advantages of differentiation ought to lead him inevitably to the conclusion that the Government's policy on differentiated fees is correct? Will he support their policy, and will he tell us his views on that policy before he completes his remarks?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman wants to trip me up, but I am perfectly capable of tripping myself up—I intend to do so later in my speech.
I did not have much sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield about geographical spread. That is a tough one, because I am from not only the south-east but the very heart of London. The hon. Gentleman is from Huddersfield and he is likely to see the world differently. On a matter of such importance, we cannot use research funding as if it were some sort of adjunct to regional policy. We cannot use it as though it were some sort of outdoor relief. I know that I exaggerate to make the point, but I put it in those stark terms because I say to him that those considerations are inappropriate.
Returning to the global matter, I shall mention the credentials of Sir Richard Sykes: he is not only the rector of Imperial college, but he was the chairman of

323WH
GlaxoSmithKline. It is of fundamental importance that we have strong top-end research institutions to compete against the world. That is about not only education policy but—one might not expect a Conservative to say this—national policy. It is about how our country will maintain and improve its cutting edge.
I did not think that I needed to declare earlier in my speech that I am a director of BAE Systems, but I am, and, in that position too, one sees the importance of topnotch, concentrated science in our universities as a contribution to our efforts as a nation.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield said, with some despondency, that he had heard the Government's reply and that it was unequivocally negative—a pretty dusty answer. The Government were right, however, and I want to applaud them for that. I want to ensure that that particular point, which I have been keen to make, is not lost by default.
On student finance, I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Committee made an extremely valuable contribution to the debate. I do not blame the Committee for not wanting to get itself hooked on whether top-up fees are right or wrong and instead taking the rather elegant approach of assuming a Government policy and considering how it could be improved. Several of the Committee's recommendations, which were set out very ably by the hon. Gentleman, are very important contributions and could go some way to cracking the nut, which is a difficult one to crack.
The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) made an extremely interesting intervention about differential fees for non-undergraduate courses outside the area that we are considering. There must be some read-across there. Anyone who is opposed to top-up fees, whether they are on the Back Benches or the Front Benches, has an obligation to read the report, to wrestle with its points and to understand some of the alleviations that the Committee mentioned.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield did us all a great service by emphasising recommendation 35, which states:
"We believe that there is much evidence to show that there is an inevitable link between diversity of funding and the ability of universities to develop and to operate with greater independence and freedom"—
spoken, sir, like a good Conservative. I found it heartwarming to hear that extremely good point made. I will sit down before I get myself into any more trouble.
3.24 pm
Alan Howarth: We are indebted to the Select Committee for a report that is always interesting and which articulates a range of important issues very well. The volume of evidence is a gold mine. There is a great deal that we can read with instruction and benefit. I congratulate the Select Committee. I also want to congratulate the Government on reversing the decline over so many years of the unit of resource for higher education and on their commitment to raise funding for the higher education system by substantial amounts in real terms year on year. I congratulate them on having grasped a good bunch of nettles—to use the phrase that R. A. Butler used in speaking of the Education Act 1944—in their White Paper. We may as
324WH
well take these difficult problems together not least because we cannot have a coherent policy unless we do. If we get the reforms right, they could be as historic as the 1944 Act.
There are two imperatives for the higher education system. First, we must bring in substantially more money still, beyond that which can so far be foreseen. The higher education system has been miserably underfunded and, as my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee told us, universities have defied gravity in the way in which they have sustained quality during the period in which there has been rapid expansion at marginal cost, on the cheap.
I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend said about university pay. It is, as the Select Committee said, woefully low. Over the past 20 years, there has been a 4 per cent. increase in academic pay against a 45 per cent. increase in average earnings. We simply cannot expect to renew the academic system to the necessary quality if we fail to reward those who work in it, whether as academics or non-academics.
The Government have managed to increase public funding for research by substantial amounts, which is enormously to their credit. However, we need yet more funding for research. There is a backlog of tatty and inadequate facilities that it will cost a lot of money to make good. Students are impoverished, and there will be many more students in any case. We need more money.
The second imperative is to widen participation in higher education. That is appropriate in a just society—those who are qualified to enter higher education should be able to do so. That is a principle that everyone has accepted since Robbins. In our modern economy, in which intellectual skills are increasingly at a premium, it would also be foolish not to enable those who are qualified to receive a university education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) mentioned, the demographic projection is that 150,000 more people will be qualified for higher education by 2010.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The right hon. Gentleman reiterates the Robbins principle that everyone who is qualified should be entitled. What does he believe constitutes being qualified? It seems that the number of people involved has increased remarkably in line with the number of places available. I wonder whether that is because of good planning by the Government or the fact that the qualification has changed.
Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman tempts me into an extensive debate that would be a digression from the themes that I wish to develop. Let me simply say that, as a rough rule of thumb, two A-levels are conventionally accepted as placing people at least on the threshold of eligibility for admission to university.
As some right hon. and hon. Members may dimly recall, I was higher education Minister between 1990 and 1992, and the more I thought about student finance during that period, the more I became convinced that top-up fees were the right way to go. Among those who influenced me at that time was Professor Barr, whom the hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned, and who has contributed an exceptionally interesting piece of evidence, reprinted in the Select Committee's report. I commend it to anyone who takes a serious interest in this vexed topic.

325WH
I was tiptoeing towards that view politically, but my Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), intervened decisively to kybosh my tentative project on the grounds of administrative impracticality—which were more genuine then than they would be now—and of political expediency. That was a missed opportunity. When John Major asked if I would continue as higher education Minister after the 1992 election, I declined for a variety of reasons, among them that I was not willing to preside over a continuation of the erosion of the unit of resource. I already felt that the financial position of the universities was fragile.
I then witnessed, in the period between 1992 and 1997, a headlong expansion on the cheap. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), for whom I have the warmest affection and regard, presided over much of that process. We are still struggling to recover our balance. The universities are still struggling to recover from that systemic underfunding. I give way to the hon. Gentleman—I am tempted to refer to him as my hon. Friend.
Mr. Tim Boswell: I shall stay neutral on that. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record he will find that most of the expansion took place before I assumed office, following a short interregnum after his tenure. Partly through some control on student numbers, we retained a measure of stability through most of my time in office. I claim no credit for headlong expansion. Will the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that there was a degree of consensuality in the expansion process in the very early 1990s, because it was caused partly by vice-chancellors taking on additional students at the margin, as he said, not simply by a Government edict that they should do so? All the Government's expansion targets at that time were exceeded.
Alan Howarth: There was much greater scope for legitimate efficiency gains at the start of the process than there was later, but I know that the hon. Gentleman, at the end of the day, always had the well-being of the university system at heart. One wonders whether the Conservatives can convincingly claim that now when they have clearly set their face against the necessary expansion of participation in higher education. The position that they are taking on expansion and top-up fees is opportunistic. It would deny opportunity to people who ought to have it, it would deny funding to universities and it is unrealistic fiscally because those additional young people in our society will have to be educated and trained, and that will have to be paid for. There is no reason why it should not be paid for at the academic level for which they qualify.
I believe that the Conservatives are wrong and that the Government are essentially right in the thrust of their policy: to allow increases in tuition fees; to cover the costs through loans to be repaid by graduates only as and when their incomes reasonably permit; to bring back maintenance grants to help people from low-income homes; to improve help for part-time students; and to support universities, schools and colleges in working together to raise educational aspirations. That must be the fairest way to go, and best for the well-being of the universities.
326WH
Why do I say that that way is fairer? The present system is regressive. The difference between the fees paid by students from the richest families and students from the poorest is only some £1,125. That difference is too little. The Government's policy of increased fees, covered by loans plus grants redistributes resources away from students in better-off families towards students from worse-off families—through the reintroduction of the grant— and to future graduates on low pay or no pay. That is a progressive policy.
At present, the imbalance between funding by way of taxation and funding by way of fees is too great. Of course higher education is a public good, and a large proportion of the cost ought to be met by general taxation. At the moment, the maximum student contribution is only 25 per cent. of the cost of tuition. Public expenditure on higher education is £6 billion, and fees account only for some £400 million of that. Higher education confers enormous private benefits, and taxes paid by relatively disadvantaged people are excessively subsidising those who are directly advantaged through the experience of higher education, which is regressive. Fees are fairer than taxes, and variable fees are fairer than flat-rate fees. The cost and the private benefit of different universities and different courses varies, and ought, in fairness, to be reflected in the fees.
Mr. David Rendel: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that even within one university, different courses may lead to different financial rewards for graduates? Within one course it is quite possible for different graduates to go into entirely different careers, which may have different financial effects.
Alan Howarth: Yes, I do, and the policy response to that should be a matter for individual institutions. They should certainly have the freedom to set differential fees and should not be discouraged from doing so.
Government are addressing the sources of unequal opportunity through their strategy on access. Class differential in education attainment and denial of opportunity occur early. Of those working-class students qualified to go into university, 90 per cent. do, but the problem is for them to get to qualification. Only some 15 per cent. of children of unskilled workers reach that gateway. The Government's policies on sure start, child care, nursery education, school standards, university outreach into schools—the Aimhigher programme—and educational maintenance allowances all represent the way to attack the social class gap problem in higher education.
Why do I say that the Government's policy would also be better for the well-being of the universities? It is the only realistic prospect of bringing substantial amounts of additional money into the system. Taxpayers will not be willing to do so, nor should they be expected to do so.
If there is an increase in fees, we should see the burgeoning of a market in education. We need that. We need to reduce the dirigisme and bureaucracy—what the Select Committee refers to as micromanagement, as a theme in its report. The Government are becomingly self-conscious on the question of micromanagement. They acknowledge the issue and express their resolve to do better in the future by micromanaging less. That will

327WH
be very difficult if the Government are to be directly responsible for such a large proportion of the expenditure on universities. In any case, not only is all that bureaucracy burdensome, costly and distracting in relation to what universities are really there to do, but it is objectionable in a free society.
The Government's role is to see fair play, to strengthen incentives, to ensure that the information is there for the consumers of higher education, and to enable people to take the opportunities that they ought to have in higher education, but not to plan and run higher education to the extent that they now do.
In relation to the question of promoting the well-being of universities, I would again argue that variable fees are preferable. Where all institutions charge the same, there will not be competition or the pressure to identify and respond to student preferences. I perfectly understand why the Government judge that, when introducing top-up fees, it is wise to set a cap at £3,000.
Dr. Gibson: May I ask my right hon. Friend how he would judge mediaeval history against a physics course? Would the fees be chargeable at the same rate? How can one judge which should get the maximum and which should get less?
Alan Howarth: I would not make that judgment. It is for the vice-chancellor and his university colleagues to make such judgments.
We are dipping our toes in difficult waters. An initial cap of £3,000 may be appropriate, but I hope that the Government will look forward to lifting it at the earliest opportunity. I am concerned that they expect the cap to remain at that level for the whole of the next Parliament, which could be until as late as 2011. We will need more money sooner than that. When they come to legislate, I hope that they will at least deal with the figure in secondary legislation, as it would allow flexibility; I hope also that they will rule nothing out.
I would add that the more that can be raised from universities through fees, the more the Government will be released from the responsibility of funding tuition—and the more money will be available to fund research. I tend to agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield than with the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), but the dichotomy between them is not absolute. We must, of course, fund our world-class research so that it remains world-class, but it would be improvident to fail to fund the 4-rated departments. The Government have offered them a reprieve, but we need confidence that the reprieve will be enduring—and we need to be sure that there will be enough money to support promising research, wherever it may be needed. In keeping with our properly cherished tradition of higher education, we should do all that we can to ensure that the cross-fertilisation of ideas between teaching and research is as extensive as possible.
The Government are on the right lines, but the package could be improved. The Government should go a little further, ensuring that higher education will be truly free at the point of use. By that, I mean that they should commit themselves to increasing loans for maintenance so that they allow a sum to cover realistic student living costs. They should abolish the means test.
328WH
They should treat students not as kids who happen to be dependent on their pa rents longer than those who leave school at 16 but as people who are entering adulthood. Doing that will end the burden on parents, end student poverty, end that desperate juggling between paid work and study, and create independence for students. That would be attractive.
The Committee proposed that the interest rate subsidy should be ended. I see the advantages of being able to use that sum, which could be as much as £1.2 billion. The case could also be made that money should not be used to provide fee remission for students from less well-off households because of the principle that graduates should repay according to their earnings. It may be an attractive proposition in presentational terms, but it is not a logical part of the scheme.
If we were able to free resources in those two ways, we could produce a much more redistributive and attractive package of support. Increasing loans and grants and extending educational maintenance allowances would, in the end, be a better solution. We could also spend more on university outreach. We could spend more in supporting universities, in order to ensure that people from disadvantaged backgrounds successfully made the transition into higher education. Although all that may be further down the track, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends not to rule it out.
We need more money for research. The Department of Trade and Industry proposes that the research councils should pay 65 per cent. of the true cost of the research that they pay for. It seems highly questionable that the missing 35 per cent. will be found from QR funding from the Higher Education Funding Council or from charities. That gap needs to be filled. The transparency review found that Departments themselves were not paying the true cost of the research that they commissioned, and I hope that my hon. Friend can assure us that the Government will do better in the future.
We need to find more money to support endowments. It is pleasing that both major parties are now committed to the principle of enabling universities to build up endowments. It is bound to be a long haul, but some money, at least initially, should be made available to enable universities to set up foundation offices in the way in which they have been assisted to set up business development offices.
A legitimate question is how I believe all that should be paid for. Unblushingly, I would say that Government borrowing should pay for it. The Government keep telling us that higher education is very good for the economy. We know that there is an increasing premium in the global economy on intellectual skills. We need to invest in human capital, and there is a very good business case for Britain borrowing to invest in it. I see no reason why we should not borrow, especially to cover the transitional period before the new arrangements become self-financing or more so.
I understand the political nervousness surrounding the issue. The changes proposed are radical. The subsidy for the middle classes will be somewhat reduced. Universities may become more differentiated through the operation of a market in higher education, and some academics may find the resulting comparisons odious.

329WH
There is much black propaganda. which is intensifying the anxieties that young people, especially those from working-class families, have about debt. Young people can foresee the debt, which they assume will be like credit-card or even loan-shark debt, much more clearly than they can foresee the benefits of the reforms. The policies are right, however, and are attractive, when properly understood, and I hope that the presentation of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be unapologetic and entirely confident.
3.46 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: This is an opportune debate and I am sure that we will make avid progress with the issue in the next few months. There will be sharp conversations, which I welcome. We do not get many chances in a generation to talk about higher education, its revision and ensuring that we get it right. It is so important to this nation and, indeed, to the world.
The Select Committee report is very welcome. At this stage, I would give it a 2:1 bordering on a first, although the Committee may appeal. Many things in it are excellent. In particular, I welcome the discussion about the concentration of research funding—a system developed in this country through the Russell group, whereby 12 great universities and true used to meet in an hotel. The principle was that the universities had medical schools attached to them. That has now changed, due to this Government. Medical schools are developing in other universities, for example I might mention Manchester, its good work, its spin-off companies and all the other stuff that is going on there. I could also mention Dundee. When I was young, Dundee was a strange place. It had a bridge and that was about it. It now has a distinguished university, which is preeminent in cancer research worldwide. It may well be the next Nobel prize winner.
One can never tell what will happen when individuals have the determination to make things happen. That is what we want to encourage. Concentrating research funding sometimes devalues people, with the result that they are bribed and recruited elsewhere. A premier division is created: everyone wants a David Beckham, but it does not happen. Bright ideas come from strange places and great discoveries happen at a strange time on a Friday afternoon or at midnight in some strange laboratory.
Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, as it will allow me to cut out some of my remarks. To pursue his analogy about David Beckham, surely the point about research excellence is that a group of 11 people playing as a team at the highest level cannot possibly survive without a large pyramid of people playing in lower leagues and even at an amateur level. Width, as well as concentration, is needed to achieve the highest levels of attainment.
Dr. Gibson: The hon. Gentleman shows his age. No super football team now exists on just 11 players. There are 30 to 40 players in the first squad, who come from different parts of the world and interact in all sorts of
330WH
strange ways that are unpredictable, and they need a manager to bring everything together, as well as a lot of money.
My second point is on research and teaching, which the report discusses clearly. My experience in teaching and in having talked to alumni and students since then is that it is not the first 40 or 45 minutes of a lecture that is important because that is dum-de-dum stuff that is written up in the textbooks so the students can dive off to the library for it. What is important is that the person teaching is pretty sure that what they have just taught is the perceived truth, but knows that there is something else to research and find out, and can enthuse young people into believing that that is the truth. Being up-to-date with research is so important.
For example, I remember when people researched prions but they were not in the textbooks and people did not really believe in them. Suddenly, prions—BSE and all that—became exceptionally important in our lives. Getting that excitement and questioning across is what higher education is about. It is about making people realise that we are 99 per cent. sure of the answers. That is why higher education in this country is so excellent. We have great teachers who are also involved in research. I accept that someone can be a great teacher without doing research but it is an added value, which we must encourage, wherever it is: Luton, Norwich, Dundee or anywhere else. We must get the people who are excited about research to continue to teach, not hive them off into distinguished centres such as Imperial college, where they closet themselves away and do great research but do not talk to and excite the next generation of young people in the arts or the sciences.
I am pleased that low academic pay has been mentioned and that we have discussed contracts, which really put people off academic life. Why would someone want to start in a profession if they do not know after two years whether their grant will be continued for another three years in a subject area in which they have not won a Nobel prize, but are doing something that they believe in and that might just, in five or six years, bear fruit? That is the same in the sciences and the arts. We are so good at research in this country and we must maintain it. I am sure that that comes through in the report. The Government recognise that and are making great strides in trying to ensure that we hold on to it.
No one can say that we do not need extra funding in higher education. It has been starved for years in terms of percentage of gross domestic product. We must get money into that system. We might rehearse elsewhere how to do that, and I might point out one or two ways to do more to get people excited enough to put money into the process, but we need the money now. My problem with any scheme is that I do not want it in 2020 or 2030. Universities need money now. Norwich university has this week had to set up a taskforce to handle angry parents, and young people from abroad and mature students who have nowhere to live. It is absolutely disgraceful that students throughout the country are having trouble finding places to live. An aggressive recruitment policy is under way, because bringing students in equals money, but the infrastructure is not there. We know of the problems with lecture theatres and so forth.

331WH
Those are the real problems, including academic pay, that we really must address. We need the money now. If we are to get the money down the line, we must find some process of delivering it to make our higher education sing at the highest level and to ensure that the people who are in it stay there. The tendency to drift away to the much richer colleges and universities in the United States and parts of Europe will always be there unless we tackle those basic issues. It is all right talking about doing great research, but not if the water is pouring through the roof. That does happen. I might exaggerate a little, but we can do better with our infrastructure.
Broadening access to universities is key. I and many other hon. Members have said that before. It is disgraceful that people from working-class backgrounds have not accessed higher education. It is not because they are incapable, but because there has not been a mechanism for bringing them in and encouraging them to aspire to the things that they want to achieve. My father said, "You don't want to go to university. They're a bunch of snotty individuals. They never talk to anybody when they come home. You stay home and play football—you'll be big in your local team." My mother directed me to university and I have never regretted it. Home life and parents are important influences on what one does in life. Teachers who not only inspire but guide and say, "You're capable of doing this," are also important. Sometimes I think that we are bad at encouraging people.
I do not know why the target is 50 per cent.—why not 60 per cent. or 70 per cent.? Sometimes I get a funny feeling about targets, because they can be reached by manipulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) suggests that foundation courses help to raise the percentage of students and he has his worries about that. If foundation courses bring people into learning then they are fine. However, I do not want to stop at 50 per cent. Why not push the target up?
I do not know why we have stopped at 18 to 30-year olds. What is so magic about that age group? Some of the best students I have ever taught were mature students who came back at the age of 50 after their children had grown up and got first class and 2:1 degrees, which were as good as those obtained by any of the young people. They could also drink young people under the table at any time in the student bars, which are an important part of student life because students go there to interact and to discuss things.
We often focus on individuals in this debate. Giving an individual an opportunity to develop is fine, but higher education is broader than that. It gives so much to the nation and it binds people together. I get emetic when I hear about miners' sons paying for richer people to use higher education— the situation has been like that for ages. I can counter that point with arguments about the percentage of income tax that different social class groups pay.
I do not know what happens to my income tax. I do not have much say on whether it goes into defence or nuclear power, and we all have that problem. Such arguments will not move the debate on. We must work together as a nation to improve our higher education. Such arguments set person against person and class against class, which is not what we are trying to achieve
332WH
through higher education. We are trying to get people from right across the nation to work together and to interact not only in scientific laboratories or arts classes, but socially. Universities are so good at getting people to discuss the sort of world that they come from and breaking down barriers.
Two weeks ago, I met alumni from the 1960s to the 1990s whom I taught over the years in the United States. I am so proud that not one of them is working in a field related to the subject that they studied at university. They have forgotten everything that we ever taught them, but we made them enthusiastic and keen to work at life and to get on with things. What people do at university should not matter.
I do not want to compare a dustman with a Nobel prize winner—we are all dustmen really because we all put out the bins in the morning. We all have social functions at all sorts of levels because we work together as a nation and as a community. We are not getting over the message about higher education and we are not winning the arguments. I understand why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that he would rather put money into other levels of education—we have not sold the value of higher education to people.
The vice-chancellors of higher education institutions exist in sleepy hollows and do not interact with local communities. Their idea of interacting with the community is having a pop concert and inviting some young people. They are very poor at interacting with schools in their community and making sure that the university is not a place up the road that is very difficult to get into, apart from once a year when people can visit to listen to a rock concert. Access to things of value should be opened up clay and night, week-in and week-out, throughout the year.
I know about the splits, resentments and arguments among further education colleges. I have fought for years to make the higher education colleges in cities such as Norwich work together. There is no reason why the people in both sectors cannot cross over, but that does not happen because of personalities. The chief executives and the vice-chancellors do not want that. We must break down that attitude in political terms, which would break down some of the social and cultural differences.
Employers have much more to do in the process. I have worked in the United States and seen how much local employers put into local universities. Why? They know that many of the people who have been educated in their local university or college will end up working for them. Many people who came to Norwich and did not intend to stay there, ended up working for the Norwich Union. What has the Norwich Union put back into the local university? I am referring not to a couple of prizes, but to bringing bright people through the system who will eventually benefit the company. We have not cracked that.
I have recently started paying my old universities—Edinburgh and Norwich—to help them to develop their buildings and enterprises, but some alumni still hold up their hands and say, "Why should I give anything back to the university that educated me?" and that makes me queasy. It happens in the United States, where people's loyalty to their local university is amazing. Perhaps they do that because they are paid good money, but they also

333WH
feel loyalty to their universities because they came through the system and gained the advantages, so they feel that they should help other people at those universities.
That brings me to top-up fees. I have serious problems with that idea—not with the principle, but with whether the money can be delivered now when we need it. The scheme would be variable and, as has been said, it happens in one sector. It is difficult to think of a more divisive scheme—coming from where we are now, with central control—than moving to a system of students paying more in one department than another. What worries me is that a student might choose a course because it is cheaper than another. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister said this morning—he will tell me if I heard correctly, because it was early in the morning—that to get people into physics it might be a good idea to have a cheaper top-up fee. If I am wrong, I apologise, but I think that that is what he said. Reading physics is more expensive than reading fine arts because technicians, equipment, laboratory facilities and so on must be paid for. That is a fact of life.
A system would be set up under which universities they have autonomy—would control the money coming in to pay not only bursaries but the departments that do not have enough to practise the black art, and my example would be physics. A dilemma would be created and I know how academics fight each other. Exceptionally articulate people talk for hours about issues and get nowhere. We do not want to set up such a system and that is a problem.
On top-up fees, £5,000 may be fine, but would it deliver enough? We can argy-bargy about that until the cows come home, but where would it stop? If Richard Sykes has his evil way, they would be £12,000 or £15,000, which is exactly what happens in the United States. There are league tables of student debt. There are also huge bursaries and most students receive some support based on their family's income.
What worries me is that worrying about debt is part of the British culture. That is a shame, but it is so. Young students, whatever their background, are frightened of debt. It is all right for middle-class students because mum and dad or someone else can just go without one skiing trip and pay off the debt—that happens. There is a real problem with telling young people that they will end up with a large debt. Young people at meetings with Members of Parliament have asked how they can come out of university without debts. That started in the 1980s and we must sell the idea to them, but it will not be easy.
Nevertheless, it is great that we are now looking into ways of bringing in money. I have mentioned taxation and graduate tax—I do not know The arguments against it and have not seen the documentation, but I know that it might take a long time to get the money up front. That could be the case with top-up fees too and I should like to see the comparison. We have not yet properly examined this country's potential for getting income from different sources to get enough money into a system that has ailed for too long.
4.4 pm
Valerie Davey: As a member of the Select Committee, I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss the report, and also that the
334WH
Government have initiated this in-depth discussion of the future of higher education. I endorse the summary at the front of the document and, before I speak about student funding, I shall highlight two areas.
The first is research funding. As somebody from a region—I represent Bristol—I feel that the DTI argument is strong and that there is a need for regional development. We cannot dissociate the universities from regional development and from links with business and industry in their areas. I urge large companies in the Bristol area, such as Lloyds bank, to make a Bristol-based contribution—my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) made a similar case for companies in Norwich. Lloyds is now based in Bristol and should have a greater involvement not only in research but in basic funding. There is a need for widespread consideration of research, and acknowledgement that in high-powered science the equipment alone necessitates a focus. However, that should not be restricted to the handful of institutions to which we have heard references.
Secondly, I want to highlight the short but important sentence, "Universities are their staff". I, too, was disappointed that the Government did not take that as seriously as I was expecting them to. The calibre of the staff in any university is soon reflected in the number of high-calibre students that it attracts and its national and international standing. It is disappointing that universities, above all, have failed to give equal funding to their women lecturers and professors. The fact that they have failed to take the equal pay legislation seriously is something that the Government should bear in mind when considering further funding.
Looking back, and wondering where some ideas had emerged, I stumbled by chance during the holidays on a Young Fabian document called "Students as Citizens: Focusing and widening access to higher education". I highly recommend it. It has some surprising things in it. Not so surprisingly, one of the then Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who gave it his blessing, talked about the importance of the document and went on to say that he could not endorse all of it. For example, he said,
"fee differentials would, in my view, have an adverse effect on access and participation, and be detrimental to the overall objectives of our higher education policy."
He went on, sensibly, to say,
"Despite this, I happily recommend this pamphlet to all those who value the British higher education system and seek to ensure that we have a high-quality, modernised and accessible system to take us into the new millennium."
None of us could disagree with that last section. Some of us, including me, might be a little ruffled to find out that this 1998 document endorses, in part at least, the need for students to pay fees and even for them to pay—there is no use of the phrase "top-up fees" at the time—differential fees. The Minister might be interested to read the document to see how such ideas emerged and consider the logic of the view, "If you pay fees, then, potentially, you pay differential fees." However, I draw his attention to a few other key sentences that link into the debate about high-quality, modern and accessible universities. We acknowledge

335WH
that high quality depends on funding. No one in the Chamber argues that we do not need to get more funding into universities.
What about modernisation? The Committee did not spend enough time considering how universities will deliver education in the future. We struggled with what the new schoolroom might look like in even five or 10 years, but I am not sure that we took up the challenge of what a modern university would be like. In future, when one signs on at a university, one might be given a CD of the initial, basic course lectures, which would allow staff more time for seminar work and research. Information technology could be used to deliver university courses outside the city or area that it is in. None of us has grappled sufficiently with how courses will be delivered and how the modernised university system will be styled. I heard a lecture recently at Bristol university by a professor from Portugal who was considering the increased need for course and research collaboration across Europe. We turn our eyes too readily to the American Ivy League group and not sufficiently to Europe.
Colleagues have congratulated the Government this afternoon, as I do, on the accessibility schemes that have allowed people from whatever background to obtain those vital qualifications needed to enter university. Sure start and the education and maintenance allowances are part of the debate about access to higher education.
We then come to the need for students to make their own contribution. I do not deny that they should. I have argued that point on the doorsteps of my city, where there are many undergraduates and—more challengingly at times—the parents of future undergraduates at the four excellent universities.
Interestingly—returning to the Fabian document—we have not been selling higher education. It suggested that we should have set up the tertiary education recruitment agency—a professional and voluntary group that should have gone into schools to explain higher education and to help young people, staff and parents fully to understand the potential of higher education. the courses, the cost and what was then the Government's student funding policy. Had we sold that idea and surmounted the initial, huge psychological barrier to accepting the need for a student contribution to fees, we would not now be in quite the same situation. All the feedback that I have received from my constituents has been opposed to differential and top-up fees. I shall list several reasons for that—they are in no particular qualitative or priority order.
The fees fall at the first hurdle because of their complexity. We have heard about the complexity of setting the tariff for courses and universities. Who will set the tariff? At present, the Government set it by capping the amount payable. The comment that we heard earlier—that £3,000 might be the cap in 2011— is a nonsense. I do not advocate pursuing that line. The Chairman of the Select Committee made it clear that the Committee does not advocate going to £5,000. The logic of the Government's argument must be that if they go into a marketplace, they must do something other than cap at £3,000.
336WH
The document takes it as read that, if fees must go up, the Government will, as in their earlier determination of school funding, pay the full cost for students from low-income families. The Government seem to be moving tentatively towards saying that £3,000 is the cap, but that for low-income families not only the first £1,000 but the whole lot will be paid. If they do that, they will hand to the universities the challenge of deciding what the cost should be. Low-income students will have it paid. It might rise to £5,000; if it rises to £15,000 at Imperial college the Government will pay £15,000. That completely undermines the argument about getting more funding into universities from students. We shall be back with the dilemma that arises from the Government making a much higher contribution, via the students, to the fee income.
Present Government policy has the worst of both worlds. They will not wholeheartedly embrace the idea that some people now tentatively accept, although I refuse to, that higher education is a market commodity that can be given to those who can afford it, provided that they have a certain willingness to work; nor do they say that they want to offer real access, in which case they cannot make themselves hostage to university boards by allowing them to decide where they will set the fee level. We must go back to absolute principles. The principle in my book is that funding is certainly needed.
The Select Committee report gives alternatives. The Government have not studied sufficiently carefully the possibility of even another 1 or 2 per cent. on the loan interest rate across the piece. Students are taking out loans at market level rates to subsidise the way they live today, so such an approach would help many of them. In addition, the report contains other ideas that should be seriously considered.
The Government should say that the state expects all students to make their contribution, as a member of the community, to whichever university they have determined is best for them. Students would not have to second-guess the likely fees and the length of time for which they would be repaying the loan. They would not be guessing their income on graduation and the length of time it would take to pay off the loan on that income. I agree with those who ask how it is possible to tell that a particular course at a particular fee will provide the relevant students with an income of £x thousand in the future. That approach is not an accessible one for many students, who unlike most people in this Room know the real benefit of university education for them in the future.
I accept that students should make a contribution. It should be a flat rate. I am prepared for an increase, but I am not prepared for a differential. That would make us a hostage to the universities, which would themselves have a difficult problem in identifying and sorting out a fee. In Bristol, the greatest number of applicants want to study English. Should the university raise the fees for English, because more people would pay and then cross-subsidise? Who will do that? Who is the Lady Bountiful who will set not only the fee but the bursary and the way in which it is determined?
The matter is hugely complex. Our report offers the Government some alternatives and that is why I wholeheartedly endorse it. I do not agree with every

337WH
suggestion, but it is a good paper, which the Government and universities should read in detail. I trust that that will help them to come up with something that offers good quality, modern, accessible higher education.
4.18 pm
Jeff Ennis: It is always a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) in debates of this kind. I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills who welcomed the increased contribution that the Government are to make to higher education over the next few years—a real-terms increase of more than 6 per cent. per annum. Like everyone else who has spoken, I regard the report as balanced. It gives the Government a good steer. Many of the points that I would have made have already been raised, so I shall try not to repeat them.
Barnsley, East and Mexborough has the lowest gross domestic product per capita of any constituency, at 62 per cent. of the European average. It also has some of the lowest rates of staying on for higher education, which is a direct consequence of its being a former mining area. It will be no surprise to my colleagues that one of my main interests in this debate is the agenda for widening access for poorer students.
I am sure that the Government will admit that they have so far failed to achieve the golden objective of widening access. The figures for 1995 show that 26 per cent. of higher education students came from the three lowest socio-economic groups. By 2000, that figure had increased by only 1 per cent. to 27 per cent. We can obviously do better. It cannot be right that only 15 per cent. of children from poorer families went to university last year, compared with 81 per cent. of those with professional parents. I am sure that the educational ministerial team shares my concern about that problem.
One cannot divorce higher education from the main route into it—namely, secondary education. The killer fact that I always quote in such debates was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth). It is that, irrespective of class background, 90 per cent. of all students who achieve two A-levels go on to university. Without doubt, the main priority for widening participation must be action in schools. The future 14-to-19 agenda will be extremely important in achieving that.
Considerable effort is needed in schools to raise aspirations and achievement among students from poorer backgrounds. That can 1D,, done only with the active and direct participation and support of the higher education sector, a point made forcibly by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). I am glad to say that many enlightened universities are beginning to take the issue seriously, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West referred to Bristol university as a case in point.
The Dearing report, which had all-party support at the time of its launch, concluded that the cost of HE should be shared among those who benefit from it, with the individual, the state and employers all making a contribution. The Select Committee strongly supports
338WH
that principle and recommends that the Government explore ways of encouraging a more substantial contribution from business. That has to be right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said. Equally, there is no doubt that the ending of up-front fees is a big step in the right direction.
The Committee also welcomes the reintroduction of maintenance grants, albeit at too low a level for poorer students. However, it urges the Government to consider the introduction of educational maintenance allowances as a more effective and seamless way of encouraging students who have successfully completed their sixth-form studies to continue into higher education. EMAs are certainly having the desired effect in Barnsley and Doncaster because, in the academic year 2001, the number of young people staying on in the sixth form rose by more than 6 per cent. in Barnsley, and by more than 5 per cent. in Doncaster, where the EMAs are being piloted.
It is my belief that EMAs will have a positive impact in encouraging students not only to stay on but to study more vocational A-levels and take more national vocational qualifications. That would assist our 14-to-19 agenda, which is attempting to increase vocational courses in our secondary education system and in foundation degrees. However, we need to monitor the type of courses that EMA students are doing—a subject that I have raised before. We do not currently have a monitoring mechanism; I think that learning and skills councils should do that, because the implementation of the EMAs from next year will lead to a drastic improvement in participation in vocational education over the next few years. I would like the Minister to respond to that point.
The notion of foundation degrees and their extension must be right if we are to expand vocational education. However, I agree with the report's conclusion that it is a mistake for the Government to make a strong link between the move to a 50 per cent. participation rate and foundation degrees. It would also be a mistake to assume that encouraging more students from poorer backgrounds into HE means steering them towards foundation degrees.
Higher national certificates and higher national diplomas are well established non-vocational qualifications, and they should not be phased out until it is clear that they have been superseded by foundation degrees—another recommendation from the report that I feel strongly about. Foundation degrees can be introduced into universities only when there is a genuine and clear demand from business, particularly local business, for that type of qualification. I hope that foundation degrees will lead to further integration and co-operation between further education colleges and universities. That must be welcome, but in order for it to succeed, the Government need to simplify funding procedures, and inspection and assessment regimes, in so far as they impact on higher education colleges.
Without going into too much detail, I believe that many of the report's proposals on student support mechanisms are extremely positive. For example, to name but three recommendations, if tuition fees rise, the Government should pay the full fee for poorer students. We also say that the increase in the income threshold

339WH
from £10,000 to £15,000 should be up to £25,000, which is the average national wage. Finally, full cost maintenance should be reintroduced.
The aspect of student support that the Government urgently need to revisit is differential tuition fees. I agree with many points made on that by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West. I have a great fear that if such fees are implemented, we will be in danger of creating more of a two-tier HE system than currently exists. In former mining communities, such as that in my constituency, where cash is still very much king, there is a great fear of debt. Under the Government's proposals, many students from poorer backgrounds will not be attracted to the best course for them, but to the most affordable one. Consequently, the two main criteria that some students will use to choose a university will be cheapness and closeness to home. If that proves to be the case, we shall fail to meet our golden objective of widening access.
Under the existing system for universities, Wolverhampton, Teesside, Newman college and North London have access rates of more than 40 per cent. for poorer students, while the access rate at Oxford and Cambridge is only 9 per cent. I would hate it if differential fees widened that already massive chasm.
Some difficult decisions need to be made about the future funding and expansion of HE. As with most difficult decisions in life, it is all a question of balance, as the Chairman of the Committee mentioned earlier. I hope that the report will give the Minister some assistance in getting the balance right.
4.28 pm
Andy BurnhamI am neither an educationist by background nor an expert by any means. I am also not a member of the Select Committee, which has produced an excellent report that hon. Members on both sides who are contributing to this debate would do well to read before they go out into the public arena to express their views on this complicated topic.
Despite that, I hope that I am well placed to comment because, without meaning to cause offence to my colleagues in the Room, I am perhaps the only person here who went to university under a mixed funding regime. In fact, I experienced the first year of student loans. I do not want this to be a sob story, but I also went to a comprehensive on Merseyside and then on to Cambridge university. I was in the first generation in my family to go to university, so I think that I can add a relevant, if personal perspective on the challenges that people from more deprived communities face in going to university.
I will start by admitting that, in the spring of 1989, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) was putting the finishing touches to his student loans policy, I was marching through Cambridge on a "Grants not loans" march across Parker's Piece. I had long hair and flares—the lot. I was fairly convinced that that policy was the wrong way to go.
My brother, who was at the same school as me, was also on the march. He is now a teacher. In the Baron of Beef pub in Cambridge—a cracking pub that I would recommend to anyone—he said to me, "What on earth were you doing, a member of the Labour Party, on that
340WH
march? That is naked self-interest that is at show there. These are people whose parents are wealthy. They are going to go into wealthy jobs, and they are parading through the streets of Cambridge saying that they shouldn't make any contribution and the people that you were at school with, who aren't at university—aren't in high paid jobs—should subsidise it." He rightly pointed out that of the 200 people in my school year at St. Aelred's Catholic comprehensive in Newton-le-Willows, 24 stayed on in the sixth form and, by my recollection, 12 went on to university. He rightly asked why those who did not go to university should subsidise the education that I was receiving. More to the point, why should they pay for me to lounge around reading Alexander Pope, as I was doing at the time?
One point on which I did agree with Margaret Thatcher was that my degrees were a luxury. I saw no reason why I, who was deriving personal benefit from them, should not make a contribution. It changed my view. I probably opposed the policy because the Tories were proposing it, but now I know that it was a Labour policy—a future Labour Minister was devising those proposals—I know why I belatedly came around to it.
The Conservatives were right to introduce a system in which individuals were asked to contribute to their courses through student loans, but where they were wrong—
Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is making a most winsome and appealing speech. I have no wish to complain about it, except to place one thing on the record, which is not clear from the way he has presented it: there were no tuition fees or charges for education under Conservative Governments. He is talking about student loans, which supported students' maintenance. That does not completely invalidate his argument, but it is important to place that on the record.
Andy Burnham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. He is right. I was the beneficiary of a full maintenance grant, which was frozen in 1991. I then applied for a small student loan, which was the maximum available. However, the Conservatives introduced the principle that graduates should contribute to their education subsistence costs once they were employed. They were right to introduce that principle, but they were wrong to do so without concurrently increasing the funding going into universities from central Government through taxation. The two should have been done together. Their failure to do that led to under-investment in our universities, and to some of the problems with which the Minister is grappling today in presenting this package.
The Select Committee report is right to endorse the Dearing principle that the burden should be shared between the beneficiaries. The Chairman of the Select Committee made an interesting point about employers, which should be discussed further. The Committee was also right to conclude, in recommendation 37, that
"the deferral of payment of fees … removes one very significant disincentive to participation in higher education."
Those who say that top-up fees will do precisely the opposite should consider the details of the package that the Government propose.
All Labour Members agree on two clear points: universities need more money, and we need to carry on expanding access and opening up opportunities to those

341WH
from the lowest income families arid the most deprived areas. Obviously, certain logical questions follow, such as: how much should that be done? How much do universities need? What is the right balance between personal contributions, taxation, and, possibly, employers' contributions?
I represent a constituency similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis). It is where I grew up. The deterrent effect of debt on working-class children is extremely serious. It would be a dereliction of duty for anyone representing constituencies such as ours not to give that point serious consideration before reaching a view on the subject, and I have given it serious consideration.
The alternative is to put greater sums of money into higher education and give universities what they need from general taxation. Would that be fairer for my constituency and the people I represent? Leigh has a post-16 staying-on rate of less than 15 per cent. As the Chairman of the Committee said, if the money were raised from general taxation, the people in Leigh would subsidise a service from their taxes that they have not used in comparison with other parts of the country and which their children, still today, will use proportionately much less than those in other more prosperous areas.
Dr. Gibson: Does my hon. Friend think that people who do not have children should pay for school education through their taxes?
Andy Burnham: I do, because I differentiate between school education and university education. School education is a service provided to the whole country—everybody, the whole society. University education—even today, given the expansion that happened under the Conservatives—does not benefit the whole of the population, so there is a big difference between the two.
Mr. Bendel: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that not everyone from 16 to 18 goes to school, yet it is free?
Andy Burnham: In my constituency, post-16 education is entirely free. When we were at school, there was no educational maintenance allowance. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough, I thoroughly endorse it—it is long overdue. It is right that further education should be provided entirely free to encourage people into post-16 education. I make no differentiation between the two.
If money is to be raised from general taxation for education, my last priority out of primary, secondary, FE and HE would be HE, because people in my constituency are not being prepared at the other levels for the benefits of HE. The money needs to be spent earlier on in the system. I am afraid that I can come to no other conclusion than that the fairest solution for my constituents would be to make people benefiting from university contribute to it. That will remain my position until the staying-on rate is higher.
Leigh has a low staying-on rate for FE. It does not have local school sixth forms. As for the quality of FE provision, the college is good, but the quality of the buildings is very poor. I would like the Government to
342WH
prioritise investment in FE and sixth form provision in deprived communities, because the young people from deprived backgrounds that we are talking about today will not even get near a university until we have that part of the equation absolutely right.
Yes, investment in secondary education is coming through in my constituency, as I suspect it is in others. The next challenge is post-16 education. University is not an option for 50 per cent. of my constituents, because they are not staying on. For those who do stay on, the quality needs to be better so that university is a realistic ambition for them. For too many, it is not at the moment. That is my main conclusion about whether students should be prepared to contribute.
On the perception of debt, the very fact that the spectre of top-up fees is being bandied about in this place is damaging the cause that some people who are raising the argument seek to further. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East referred to the matter. When young people hear this debate, they will be frightened, because it sounds as though they are being asked to contribute a great deal. We all have a duty to explain carefully what is meant. Up-front fees are being abolished—the Select Committee welcomed that. That is an important development, which means that parents in more deprived parts of the country will save money. It will take away an up-front cost that they have, which will make university education more attractive. That is getting lost in the fevered debate on top-up fees. We need to step back and think about what damage it may do when we are raising that spectre without doing justice to the detail of the package that the Minister proposes.
In my view, that package strikes a good balance. Will it put people off the best universities? When I went to Cambridge I was on a full maintenance grant. We did not have a great deal of money, but we knew that going to one of the best universities generally means better employment opportunities. That follows as night follows day. People would not go otherwise; that is why they do it. It might create a divided system, but can anyone in this Room tell me when the university system in this country was not either elitist or two-tier? It was made up of many tiers. It is probably the most divided public service in this country. From the very top to the bottom, there is a huge range of quality of provision. People must bear that in mind; it is closely linked to employment opportunities.
In closing, I shall mention three issues that should be considered in the context of the debate. The Select Committee in recommendation 25 suggests that the Government should look closely at the drop-out rate from university. I fully support that and ask that the Government take it seriously. However, it conflicts slightly with something that the Chairman of the Select Committee said, which was that universities should be left alone to manage their affairs much more.
Alan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend think that dropout rates need not necessarily be the subject of concern that they are? While in university, students presumably learn and if they drop out for a while then return, as many do, that should be their right, which may suit them well. Is it not important that we ensure that there is a credit accumulation transfer system that really works,

343WH
and that we do not decry people who, possibly for entirely valid personal reasons, decide that for the time being they will desist from their courses?
Andy Burnham: I was not seeking to decry anyone who drops out, nor am I endorsing the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, who seemingly wants people to lounge around the student union playing pool and drinking beer, which he thinks is great for the taxpayer. I am not of that view either. My point is that we need to give students who are in danger of dropping out more support, but we also need to do something about the culture of some of our universities. It is on that matter that I disagree with the Chairman of the Select Committee.
As a first-year student, I was waiting for the tap on the shoulder: "Come on. We've made a mistake. You were allowed in, but you shouldn't be here. On your bike." Oxbridge—this is probably true of other universities—replicates a public school culture, which is bewildering and overwhelming for children from state schools. It is a world that they have had no exposure to whatever.
It is extremely difficult to make the transition from state education to Oxbridge because a supervision system with one-on-one contact where adversarial argument is encouraged and people are asked to take others on goes against the grain of everything with which people from state schools have had to deal. Perhaps state schools should be better at preparing their pupils for the rigorous challenges of higher education. I also think that we need to be more interventionist in relation to some of the more unacceptable practices of the most elitist universities.
We need to look at what is being provided. There is an issue around media studies. It is no good putting people on courses and asking them to make a contribution when we are raising expectations about the jobs that they may do in the future. Universities have an obligation not only to entice students in with fancy sounding courses that they think people will sign up for, such as sports studies or media studies, but to ensure that those students can find employment once they have left university. In some cases, in the rush to fill places and get people on courses, they are raising expectations that cannot be fulfilled.
Should we differentiate courses that lead to careers in important public services such as teaching and medicine? Should the state provide more help for people on such courses than for people who will go into highly paid jobs in the private sector?
There will always be political difficulties when expanding contributions from individuals into areas that have been traditionally funded by taxation. This issue raises difficult questions, just as residential and nursing care still do. The left of our party, and the left generally, often loses its way in such debates. It sees the loss of universal free provision as an attack on those on low incomes, when the opposite is the case. Such systems cross-subsidise those on the lowest incomes.
The crucial difference in this debate is that we are talking about a group of people—graduates—who, by definition, all become middle class when they finish their studies. That is what an HE qualification does. When we live in an unequal country, why should the left argue for
344WH
state subsidies for that group of people when we have such pressing needs earlier on in our education system at primary, secondary and FE level?
The Government have got the balance right. The big challenge is to invest in our secondary schools and FE, and to lift the horizons of secondary school pupils. Everyone has bleeding hearts about kids from deprived backgrounds. Let us invest in their schools and give them self-belief and the belief that they can go on and fulfil their potential. Let us get the money to the parts of the system in which everyone benefits.
4.46 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I commend the report that has been produced under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). This has been an interesting debate and there have been many valuable contributions. I draw attention, in particular, to what my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said. Even though he ate a little into the time that I hoped to have for my speech, I thought it important that he spoke from his experience.
I think—perhaps the Minister agrees—that the arguments that have been made this afternoon supporting the Government's policy on tuition fees have started the process of shifting the balance of the wider parliamentary and political debate. I have always thought that, as more people engaged in the debate on tuition fees and differential fees, and as more Members informed themselves about the full implications of the policy, the negative reaction that the White Paper received in January, and which has continued since, would start to shift. This afternoon's debate is significant and could be a turning point in the debate on top-up fees.
Although the report deals with many significant issues, including research, admissions policies and links with business, I want to use my short time to focus on fees. I will start with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development report published earlier this week and widely covered in the national press yesterday. Although it appeared to be mainly about the educational performance of 25 to 34-year-olds, who were educated under the Conservative Government, it contained an interesting statistic that related to the impact of university education in the United Kingdom. As I recall, only the Financial Times covered it.
The report showed that the graduate premium in the United Kingdom is far in excess of that in any other OECD country. In the debate on the reform of tuition fees, the Government have used the figure of 20 per cent. as a graduate premium. That is to say that, all things being equal, on average, a graduate will earn 20 per cent. more than a non-graduate throughout his or her lifetime. In the OECD's report, the figure of 61 per cent. is quoted as a graduate premium. That clearly needs further checking, but if that is the case, and British graduates earn, on average, 61 per cent. more throughout their lifetime than non-graduates, the case against what the Government are doing must collapse immediately. That is an absolutely crucial point.
Mr. Rendel: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what is really important about the graduate premium is

345WH
the difference between what is earned by someone who goes to university and what would be earned by that same person if they got up to A-level but did not go on to university? In practice, the OECD report looked at the average graduate salary compared with the average non-graduate salary for people who would never have got to university anyway. That is quite a different figure.
Mr. Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is exactly why I said that we must look in more detail at what the OECD says. The fact remains that it is indisputable that the possession of a university education in Britain brings enormous financial advantages. Whether we are comparing non-graduates as a whole, or looking at what would have happened to the same person had they not gone to university, is frankly irrelevant.
Let us focus on the graduate premium. Here we see the precise justification for what the Government are trying to do. I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) who said that this is entirely about balance. Of course it is. It is not about a great ideological divide, but about the balance, quoted by Dearing in his report, between the contributions of the individual and the contributions of the state. In one sense, I am surprised that people get so excited by the issue, because the question is where the balance should lie. At the moment, 25 per cent. of tuition fees are paid by the individual on average, and 75 per cent. by the state. The debate is all about the powerful case for shifting that balance.
Before I move on to differential fees in general, I shall speak specifically about differential fees within universities, which has been touched on. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) is very much opposed to them on the grounds of who will make the decision. I have to tell her that such decisions are made every day of the week by managers in different educational institutions up and down the country. I spent much of the 10 years before I came into Parliament making precisely such judgments. That is partly what I was paid for. It is not terribly difficult. If the policy goes through, as I hope it will, that is what people in universities will be doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) about the relative costs of degrees in physics and mediaeval history. The question was not answered, but had it been put to me, I would have said that the answer is very simple. Most universities would make a judgment that they want to recruit more physicists because that is desperately in the national interest and will probably enhance the prestige of their university more than having even more mediaeval historians. I have nothing against mediaeval historians; some of my best friends are mediaeval historians, but it is indisputable that, in terms of the national interest of the United Kingdom, for the foreseeable future, we need significantly more physicists and slightly fewer mediaeval historians. The logic of that is that the fees set for physics degrees should be lower than the fees set for mediaeval history. I have to declare an interest because my son starts his physics degree next Monday; but setting that on one side, the point remains valid.
346WH
I turn to the wider issue of the so-called top-up fee and different fees at different universities. The question is one of balance, but it is also whether we want a university system that continues to thrive and that can compete with the best in the world. I have not yet heard anyone deny that that ought to be our national objective, but there is another question: do we want to continue to expand access to that world-class university system? Here is a divide because the Conservative party has made very clear its view that it wants to turn back the clock 25 years, restrict access to university and deny opportunities to large numbers of young people and mature students. My reading of the figures produced some weeks ago by the Higher Education Policy Institute suggests, allowing for the natural growth in demand for higher education as a result of the increasing number of students achieving the relevant A-levels, the population growth and the demographic factor which predicts an increasing number of 18-year-olds, that the Conservative party's policy of abolishing fees by cutting demand would result in a net loss of 464,000 university places by 2011.
Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Chaytor: I will not, as I am short of time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can make his point in his winding-up speech.
The nub of the issue is whether we want to turn back the clock—not to maintain the status quo but to turn back the clock to an ever-more elitist system that denies opportunity to those who could benefit from it—or whether we should find another way of funding quality and expansion. The Liberal Democrats have decided that they want to fund it out of general taxation. I would have no problem with a 50 per cent. rate of income tax on earnings over £100,000. Indeed, given the opportunity, I would probably vote for it tomorrow. However, we must keep in mind the fact that no one can give a cast-iron guarantee that, in future spending rounds, university funding would take priority over preschool, primary and secondary education, over further or higher education, or over policing, public transport or defence. I defy hon. Members to say that they could give such a guarantee.
I return to the question of the top-up fee. What is being proposed is an additional fee of £1,900 for each year of a three-year degree course. The Government have guaranteed that that sum will remain fixed until 2011, but with the impact of inflation on the basic fee, we will be talking of an increase of £1,750 for each year. If we consider the graduate premium of between 20 per cent., which was cited earlier, and 61 per cent., it is extremely difficult to see how graduates whose average earnings are now well over £30,000 a year and who, by the end of the decade, will be earning as much as £50,000, cannot afford to pay three times £1,750 over their working lives. That is particularly so when the protection is built into the system that the figure will remain at only 9 per cent. of earnings above £15,000. That is a comparatively modest amount.
Some may support the money being paid back over a graduate's working career, but through a graduate tax. I have to say that what happens now is a graduate tax by another name. However, it does not have some of the

347WH
weaknesses of a graduate tax, under which some people could avoid payment altogether. It will be difficult to avoid payment under the present system.
I come finally to debt. Many of us were the first in a thousand generations of our families to go to university. The question of debt is critical. I do not accept the romantic picture of a heroic, golden age, with working-class people refusing to get into debt. In the United Kingdom today, we see people of all socio-economic groups getting into debt; it is far more a part of life today. The fundamental distinction is not between debt and no debt, or between a willingness to get into debt and fear of debt. The distinction is the purpose of the debt.
Our problem—this is a wider issue about our political culture—is that we happily accept getting into debt for the purposes of consumption, but many have great difficulty in understanding the concept of debt for investment. People, especially younger people with very little money whose families also have very little money, will cheerfully borrow on their credit cards at exorbitant rates of interest in order to buy mobile phones and trainers. As they get older, they will borrow to buy motor cars and to go on foreign holidays. As they get older still, they will cheerfully borrow hundreds of thousands of pounds to buy houses. Why will they not borrow about £6,000 for the best investment that they could ever make?
4.59 pm
Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted that we have had yet another opportunity to debate higher education and how we pay for it, because it is one of the most glowering dividing lines in British politics. The Government want to pay for it out of tuition fees, the Liberal Democrats out of general taxation and the Conservatives by cutting the number of students. At stake is the future of our higher education system, which, as the Chairman of the Select Committee said, has a great deal going for it in terms of academic standards and international reputation, but which is struggling to cope with the legacy of years of under-investment. Student numbers have expanded while funding per student has dramatically declined for the last two and a half decades. The result is a threat to the quality of the education and research that universities are able to provide.
There is much to welcome in the Select Committee's report. It acknowledges the problems facing higher education. Apparently, only the Conservatives are oblivious to the fact that universities need more money—now—and to the powerful moral and economic case for wider participation and greater social equality in our universities. The Liberal Democrats agree with the Committee about the importance of teaching taking place in a research-active environment—a criticism of the Government's contention that the relationship between teaching and research is merely indirect. We also agree with the Committee about the concentration of research funding. I note that on both those issues the Government have managed to unite in opposition to what they are doing almost the entire higher education sector, including Universities UK, the Association of University Teachers, the University and College Lecturers Association and the National Union of Students.
348WH
The Committee is also right about the critical issue of academic pay and its influence on retention and recruitment. It points to the absence of any substantial improvement in academic and other salaries. In response, the Government say:
"We do not see evidence of a generalised recruitment and retention problem."
However, has the Minister read the Treasury-commissioned study by Sir Gareth Roberts on the supply of science and engineering skills in the UK? That finds evidence to suggest that, given the expansion plans for higher education and the ageing demographic profile of academic staff in key disciplines, we face a staffing crisis grounded not least in the fact that academic pay is far too low.
I am delighted to pledge that my party would ensure that the universities received adequate funding to implement the proposals of the Bett report. The Liberal Democrats also agree with the Committee about an Office of Fair Access—"slim at best" is its verdict on the evidence as to why such a regulator is needed. The Government are
"very conscious of the need to avoid creating new bureaucracy".
That is good news, but it is difficult to see Offa as part of that commitment.
The Committee also concluded, rightly, that the 50 per cent. target is completely arbitrary. Hon. Members might recall an investigation by the Public Accounts Committee, on which I am proud to serve, which found that definitions of the 50 per cent. target have changed over time and that the method of measuring participation—the initial entry rate—amounts, essentially, to guess work. I therefore welcome the Government's response to the Select Committee report, which states:
"We are ultimately less concerned with the precise percentage rate of participation in any particular year than with the fact that increasing numbers of people can get the higher level of education and training that they and the economy need."
That is coming pretty close to what we have been saying all along.
More recently, Liberal Democrat research has shown that the proportion of school leavers applying to go to university is on the decline in England. If one looks at those aged 18,19 and 20, one sees that the number of university applicants increased by only 1.6 per cent. If the increase had been in line with demographic trends it would have been 3.2 per cent.—an extra 5,437 young people. That would just have retained the existing proportion of young people going to university, never mind increasing the proportion towards the Government's target.
It is interesting to compare the situation to that in Scotland, where the age group expanded by 2.1 per cent., but the number of university applicants from it increased by 5.7 per cent. That leads me to the key issue of student support and funding because of the glaring policy difference between England and Scotland, where the Scottish Executive have abolished tuition fees.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) was the lone dissenting voice on the Select Committee, speaking out against tuition fees and top-up fees. It is revealing and sad that he received no support from its Conservative members, even though the

349WH
Conservative party now claims to oppose the levying of tuition fees. The Labour-Tory majority on the Committee is, in our view, quite wrong to be so complacent about this issue.
Recent surveys show that the student debt problem is increasing and will increase further if top-up fees are introduced. A study by Barclays bank estimates that the average student debt on graduation will triple by 2010 to an alarming £33,708. With inflation at 3 per cent., such debt will increase by more than £1,000 a year, which means that a graduate paying 9 per cent. interest will need to earn at least £11,000 above the threshold before their cash deficit begins to be paid off at all. Furthermore, that threshold is due to be increased to £15.000 and is rumoured to be under consideration for a further increase. I note that the Select Committee's report concluded that the thresh old should go up to almost £25,000.
There is no doubt that debt acts as a significant disincentive to entry into higher education, especially for those young people from low-income backgrounds whom the Government say they most want to attract into our universities. There is particular concern about the disincentive to those considering longer courses such as medicine. The Committee notes critical evidence from the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on that point. The return of grants is welcome, but as the Committee notes:
"The general view of our witnesses was that the amount was too low to have any significant impact on students or potential students worried about their level of dept."
In passing, I hope that the Government will also take into account the point that top-up fees would also be a disincentive to those considering taking a gap year, especially in the year in which top-up fees are introduced. Many may decide not to take a gap year if a delay in university entry until the following year means that they will have to pay top-up fees.
There are two arguments for top-up fees, which seem superficially compelling but are both flawed. The first is that universities need the money. They do: everyone, except the Conservatives, accepts that. However, universities will not end up with a single extra penny as a result of top-up fees. Fee income will simply replace a cut in public grants. That is exactly what happened when tuition fees were introduced, which should have been a surprise to no one. When considering how much grant to allocate to HE, any Chancellor, of whatever party, is bound to decide how much of the nation's wealth can justifiably be spent on HE and take into consideration how much money the sector is receiving in tuition fees.
The Select Committee advances a second argument for tuition fees to refute the case for progressive taxation as the best and fairest way to fund higher education. It states:
"The price to be paid for that funding … is greater Government control of the sector",
and that there would be less "independence and freedom" for universities. However, public funding need not and should not imply Government micro-management. Public money is frequently spent by bodies such as Government agencies, which operate at arm's length from the Government.
350WH
In addition, the threat of interference by the funder is true of all types of funding, not least that from the private sector. By supporting some research projects rather than others, the private sector can also undermine academic freedom: the drugs industry is an obvious example. In such cases, public involvement can protect academic freedom.
The Select Committee heard evidence criticising tuition fees from the National Union of Students, the Association of University Teachers and NATFHE. According to the AUT, 88 per cent. of its members say that they would prefer HE to be funded through general taxation.
Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rendel: I am sorry, but I do not have the time.
According to NATFHE, its members are "overwhelmingly opposed" to top-up fees. Academic freedom is a central concern of university teachers and students, yet they accept the overwhelming case for funding through taxation.
I will deal briefly with the Conservatives. They are keen to trumpet their new policy to scrap tuition fees, but no one seems to have told their members on the Select Committee, who failed to turn up to meetings or who supported the Labour majority. We have had other opportunities to debate the ludicrous and dangerous nature of Conservative plans for HE. They say that students will not have to pay tuition fees, but in many cases that is only because those students will not be offered a place at university anyway. Separate studies by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Professor Nicholas Barr of the LSE confirm that these cuts will hit the poorest the hardest. In addition, Universities UK and the Library have rubbished the Tory sums, which simply do not add up.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats have consistently advanced the principled case against fees. I am proud to say that it was a Liberal Democrat MP who stood alone against the Labour-Tory majority on the Select Committee to speak out for a fair deal for students. I do, however, want to pay tribute to the many Members on the Labour Benches who are also taking a principled stand. They know that there are enough of them to force the Government to back down. If they stand firm, there are enough of them to win the day, but they will be faced during the next few months with all the threats and blandishments that Government Whips can think of. If they start to weaken and allow themselves to be persuaded, their electorates will never forgive them. The polls show that 80 per cent. of the people of England believe that top-up fees are wrong. The Labour rebels have a chance to save their party from electoral disaster, and I urge them to seize it.
5.10 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: This has been a good debate, based on an interesting, challenging and generally positive report, well introduced by the Chairman of the Committee and spoken to by Committee members and others today. All the submissions and evidence provided have made a major contribution to adult education. That is something to be grateful for.

351WH
I hope—not least because in a moment I shall have critical things to say about Her Majesty's Government—that we can begin with some measure of consensus. I throw one point to the Government on which we can agree: I am delighted that they are introducing in their White Paper proposals for an arts and humanities research council. We—the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) and I—laid the foundations of that work in the early 1990s. That sort of thing always takes a long time.
Rather than go on with the pleasantries, let us try to concentrate on the main issues that have emerged today. First, a brief word on research funding. Much has been said on that. I strongly endorse the feelings of the Select Committee about the lack of notice of changes made in the middle of the research cycle; the likely pyramid effects of concentration; the equivocation at the distinction between research-rich and teaching-rich universities; the somewhat undistributed middle of knowledge transfer; and the fact that throughout the academic world things are never simple. I hope that the Government will, as they have shown some sign of doing, relent on the more extreme application of their somewhat dirigiste policies and remember that it is sometimes necessary to let a million flowers bloom. That has happened very successfully in British higher education. That very positive point was rightly brought out by the Chairman of the Select Committee.
I shall say a word on the Office for Fair Access because recommendation 27 advises the Government not to proceed with the introduction of OFFA. I strongly endorse that recommendation, and not primarily for resource reasons—neither the resources needed to govern it, nor the implementation and compliance costs for the sector. The Minister will remember that the PA report suggested compliance costs with regulation of some £250 million, before we have even started.
In all friendliness, I say to the Minister that the construction of OFFA has been a very Jekyll and Hyde affair, according to whichever Minister has been dominant at the time. At the time of the White Paper, I thought that OFFA was becoming regulation-light—or regulation-lite, no doubt—and that it was simply going to ensure that individual institutions were producing fair access arrangements and look at how they were considering admissions. The Committee and the Minister will be aware that Professor Schwarz is to make recommendations as early as next week on admissions conditions, and we look forward to that.
However, ministerial written answers this week have made it clear to me that OFFA will busy itself not simply with the process of admission, but with the continuing business of the offering of bursaries in the delivery of higher education. Although that may be understandable for access reasons, it means that the whole process of university activity will be a proper subject for further interference and—a matter on which I might touch again in a moment—litigation over compliance with those agreements during the course of studies. That will create a climate of regulation, which will be entirely unhelpful.
Tuition fees are today's major concern. I turn aside from my own comments to comment briefly on what has been said, in terrorem, by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). He said—not casually, because he
352WH
repeated the assertion—that the Conservative proposals would set back participation by 25 years. I invite him to consider the age participation index in 1978 and then justify that assertion. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), whom I will allow a degree of franchise for flippancy, said that no one would be going into higher education under the Conservative proposals. I take it that that is not a serious assertion that he would wish to sustain.
If one considers the figures, it is as well to remember, for example, that 60,000 students drop out of their courses before graduation. Bearing in mind the Minister's past remarks that only graduates would have to pay, all that students who drop out will have is a substantial residual burden of student debt.
I have four comments to make about tuition fees. First, the Government's policies are unclear. That is not entirely a negative, because it is right— [Interruption.] It is necessary for the Government to consider the details more closely, considering the Minister's reaction. Apart from the need for maintenance concessions, there is a need for flexibility, whether that is implemented in regulations or not. I am not thinking wholly of the fees cap—the hon. Member for Bury, North was unduly credulous in believing that it will never be lifted—but rather of all the difficulties with which the Minister will become familiar: intercalated students, students who were full-time and convert to part-time and students who change residency. Those issues are extremely complicated, and they need to be properly addressed.
There is also the question of prospectuses. Universities will issue:heir prospectuses in the new year, and there will be students—even those who are not worried about taking a gap year—who will read them on the assumption that they will be resident from autumn 2006, without having any indication of the access agreements.
My second and more substantial objection to tuition fees is their instability. The Select Committee—for reasons that are not solely financial—has already called for an increase in the cap to £5,000, which would make a huge difference to the residual debts. That is the problem with a forced market. There are clearly higher education institutions that would like a higher cap or to charge whatever they like.
It is also worth considering the sustainability of the student fee proposals. I concur with the hon. Member for Newbury when he argues that the Chancellor will pocket the fees. The fees will be taken into account in the public expenditure survey in exactly the same way the 1998 tuition fees were. The stress on resources is likely to lead to a breach of faith because of the 50 per cent. participation target, which will be subject, as has been said, to interpretation. Even more disturbingly, it has emerged that we may end up with one cohort of students paying for another. It has been suggested that as much as one third of the top-up fee will be milked to provide bursaries for other students and to promote access. Ministers need to reflect on the fact that the students from whom the money may be taken—paying with their own money for the facility—may not end up as the highest earners and those most likely to benefit from the courses. There is a degree of inequity there.
My biggest concern, which is touched on by the Select Committee but will need further discussion, is the impact of rolling up student loans. If we accommodate

353WH
that, and if we say that the resources are there and that the Government will cover them by loan, there is already an implicit subsidy of £800 million a year. It is likely, if the Government are going to cover anything like the cost to students, that that will escalate to £2 billion a year, and even if there is some cash flow back, it seems unsustainable to me. Although we would like to do as much as we can for higher education, there are other priorities, including some that have been mentioned in relation to education, quality of secondary schools and access.
My final objection is that the policy is simply unfair. It will prove very difficult where there are two or more siblings in the family, where there are long courses, in the handling of drop-outs who have to pay substantial sums with no apparent merit and in possible cross-subsidy between students. For poorer students there is an immediate deterrent.
Members of the Chamber will be aware that yesterday, innocently enough, I asked the Prime Minister whether he felt that he had sufficient Back-Bench support for the measure. The answer made me identify for the first time with Conan Doyle and "The Hound of the Baskervilles". It was the dog that did not bark that told the loudest story. All I would say to Labour Members who do not favour differential fees is that they ought to consider coming over to this side of the Chamber, where we shall charge no fees at all.
5.20 pm
The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): This has been a really excellent debate on an excellent report. To keep Back Benchers here for two hours after the House has adjourned on a Thursday is testimony to the quality of the debate. In the short time left to me, I want to do justice to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and pick up on some of the other issues.
One of the real benefits of the way my hon. Friend opened the debate is that he added a bit of poetry that is not in the White Paper about the importance of universities and the higher education sector. Lord Dearing has a good phrase for that, which I will pinch. He said that in the middle ages, communities were built around the castle; at the time of the industrial revolution, they were built around the factory. In the 21st century, communities will be built around universities. That is a really important point about the changing nature of university education.
There was a difference of opinion on whether there is complacency—particularly in the contribution by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo)—in the Select Committee report. I do not think that there is and there is certainly no complacency in our White Paper. We are not saying that the higher education sector is declining. We are saying that it is in serious danger of falling behind its competitors, which is why we published the White Paper.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) paraphrased Rab Butler and said that we are grasping a number of nettles. Why are we doing that? Why did we not just say that we have reversed the
354WH
decline in cost per student? We are putting a real increase of 6 per cent. back into higher education during the next three years. By the end of the three-year spending review, the taxpayer will be putting £10 billion into higher education—£400 for every taxpayer in the country. Why did we not just leave it at that and not get involved with issues that are hardly focus group policies designed to pursue cheap popularity?
We did not do so—this applies to research as well as fees and funding—for the following reason. I have the figures that show what is happening around the world. The United States of America is planning an 8 per cent. increase in research and development in its universities this year. Canada is aiming to double public sector research and development spend as a proportion of gross domestic product by 2010. Between 2000 and 2005, Japan is increasing investment in science and technology by more than 16 per cent., and that is apart from what is happening in India and China. The world is changing very quickly and if we do not react, and show a bit of political courage in reacting to that challenge, our excellent higher education sector will decline and diminish.
In relation to research it is fair to say that there has been a modicum of controversy about our proposals, but we should be absolutely clear. I take a position that is balanced fairly, as always, between the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield and those made by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea. We were moving 2 per cent. of the research budget around and we did that because it will be 2008 before the next research assessment exercise, which takes place every seven years. We were trying to respond to the pressures, as we saw them, in the changing world and we did so very quickly after publication of the White Paper. The Higher Education Funding Council for England report went out about two months after the White Paper and there was a great deal of tension about whether we might have moved too quickly.
To put the matter into context, we said in our response to the Select Committee report that we are not funding a few institutions. Already, 75 per cent. of research funding goes to 25 institutions. We are not saying that only a handful of institutions will receive extra money. We point out that next year more than 43 different institutions will receive more than £5 million each for research. However, that has created tensions.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must feel like a character in a Bateman cartoon. The man who suggested that excellent teaching can exist in its own right, independent of cutting edge research, has created a furore. I seem to have interfered with the ark of the covenant in terms of higher education. I do not want the argument to continue and I do not want to be at loggerheads with the Select Committee or any other group that has made representations. I want some shared analysis. Given that the objective must be the same throughout the sector and among the various players, we must have shared analysis and repair some of the damage done by moving quickly without consultation early on. The HEFCE report, which is out for consultation, and the Gareth Roberts review of the research assessment exercise provide a vehicle for a proper debate. The Select Committee's

355WH
recommendation that we move that £21 million back again is what we are specifically rejecting and there are understandable reasons for that.
I must defend my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield because the Select Committee did not suggest a variable fee with a £5,000 cap. However, it recommended a real rate of interest being attached. We point out in the report the effect of that on low earners after graduation and the figures speak for themselves. It is worth noting that New Zealand went down that route and is now rowing back because of the problems it caused. That is the specific recommendation that we are rejecting.
There were so many good contributions, but in the few seconds left to me I want to speak about funding. This has been a good debate on the Select Committee's report because it is predicated on two central issues. First, should we expand higher education? Yes, we should, say the Select Committee, the Government and, to be fair, the Liberal Democrats. No, we should not, says today's Conservative party. I cannot understand that view and I am absolutely sure that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is as uncomfortable with it as everyone else. When we get past the stage of deciding whether to expand higher education, the question is: how should we fund it? The Select Committee said that the Dearing committee set out the principles. That was no fly-by-night, cobbled-together committee. It was a national committee of inquiry set up by the previous Government, who unanimously recommended that graduates should make a contribution.
356WH
When the Cubie committee in Scotland considered the issue, it specifically rejected all the arguments of the Opposition parties, which included the Liberal Democrats at the time, but who are now in coalition government, and the Conservatives. It said that graduates should make a contribution and that is why there is a non-means-tested contribution of £2,000 by every Scottish graduate after they have graduated. Not just Cubie, not just Dearing and not just the Select Committee, but everyone who analysed the matter properly said that graduates should make a contribution. So we are left with the real debate, which is, given the two issues of expanding higher education and graduates making a contribution, how do we do that?
My final point on whether contributions should be variable or fixed relates to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey). I cannot understand why students should be denied the chance to choose the course that they want at a price that suits them or that universities should not offer them. If we have a system with protection, a reintroduced maintenance grant and income-contingent loans—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) explained the issue more eloquently than I could and it is not credit card debt—the whole package, plus the introduction of help for part-timers for the first time, plus help for postgraduates is a good package.
This has been an excellent debate.
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

PRIME MINISTER

  Appointments
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to announce new appointments to the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and if he will make a statement. [131638]

  The Prime Minister
  I am pleased to announce that I have appointed four new members to the committee.

  Sir Alistair Graham and Professor Hazel Genn will take up appointment from 1 October 2003 in succession to Ann Abraham, who stood down from the committee on appointment as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England, and Professor Alice Brown, who resigned from the committee on appointment as the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

  Patricia Hodgson and Brian Woods-Scawen will take up appointment from 1 January 2004 in succession to Frances Heaton and Sir Anthony Cleaver, who will both step down from the committee at the end of this year, on completion of their second terms of office.

  All four appointments are for three years in the first instance, and were made fully in line with the Guidance of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  I am very grateful to Ann Abraham, Alice Brown, Frances Heaton and Sir Anthony for their work on the committee and for the significant contribution they have made to standards in public life.

  Engagements
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet the Prime Minister of Sweden. [130879]

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to next meet Prime Minister Persson at the opening of the EU Intergovernmental Conference in Rome on 4 October.

  EU Reform
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made on the Reform Agenda in the EU. [130880]

  The Prime Minister
  Reforms which will be discussed in the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference include the creation of a full-time Chair for the European Council and streamlining of the Union's structure and decision making. The European Council agreed in Seville last year to reform the way it works so it can better set the EU's strategic agenda. Progress, albeit not yet enough, has been achieved in the economic reform agenda agreed at Lisbon. Significant reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy were made in June this 868W
  year. Alongside these, the EU is implementing the changes agreed in the Treaty of Nice in order to incorporate 10 new members in May next year.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Iraq Communications Group has met since 1 September 2002; who the members of the group are; who chairs the group; and from which budget its resources are drawn. [128598]

  The Prime Minister
  The Iraq Communications Group was formalised on 5 December 2002 and met on a weekly basis thereafter. Prior to that, its members met on an ad hoc basis. Meetings have become less frequent since the end of the conflict in Iraq. There have been approximately 19 meetings in total.

  Membership varies, but it would normally include the FCO, MOD, Cabinet Office and DflD. Alastair Campbell chaired the ICG, but chairmanship has now passed to the FCO. There were no specific resources allocated to the ICG

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he communicated with all members of the Intelligence and Security Committee about the content of the September 2002 dossier on Iraq. [130731]

  The Prime Minister
  The chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, with my approval, accepted an invitation from the Intelligence and Security Committee to brief all members on the content of the September dossier at their meeting on the morning of 24 September 2002.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what his reasons were for communicating with the chairman of only the Intelligence and Security Committee rather than Select Committees about the content of the September 2002 dossier on Iraq. [130732]

  The Prime Minister
  In addition to the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, with my approval, briefed the chairmen of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Select Committees on the content of the September dossier. All three briefings took place on 19 September 2002. The leaders of the two main Opposition parties were briefed on the previous day.

  Tony Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the intelligence assessment contained in the Joint Intelligence Committee report, "International Terrorism: War with Iraq", of 10 February. [130992]

  The Prime Minister
  Joint Intelligence Committee intelligence assessments are exempt from disclosure under exemption l(a) and l(c) of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  David Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what the Government's policy is on a Security Council resolution that would give a political involvement in Iraq's future to the Security Council. [131041]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government believe that it is for the Iraqi people to determine their own political future. This view is shared by other members of the Security Council and was stated in Security Council Resolution 1483.

  Joint Intelligence Conmittee
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what official channels exist for members of the security services to flag up concerns over the interpretation of raw intelligence data to the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee. [128805]

  The Prime Minister
  There are established procedures by which the views of members of the intelligence and security agencies are relayed to the JIC. Before a paper is taken by the JIC, it is discussed at working level and then considered more formally during inter departmental meetings (called Current Intelligence Groups or CIGS) at which representatives reflect the agreed views of their agencies and Departments. If outstanding issues remain, staff are expected to raise the matter with their representative on the JIC who will bring it to the attention of the committee when appropriate. Additionally, staff in the security and intelligence agencies are able to take any concerns or grievances they have, and which they have been unable to resolve within their internal management chain, to the staff counsellor who acts as an independent adviser.

  Mongolia
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will receive an official visit from the Prime Minister of Mongolia. [131179]

  The Prime Minister
  The Mongolian Prime Minister, Mr. Nambaryn Enkhbayar, will visit the UK as a guest of Her Majesty's Government from 23–25 October this year.

  Sweden (Euro Referendum)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Sweden on the result of the Swedish euro referendum; and if he will make a statement. [130878]

  The Prime Minister
  I am in regular touch with Prime Minister Persson on a range of issues. We spoke most recently on 12 September.

  We respect the decision made by the people of Sweden on 14 September. The UK policy remains as before as I set out in my answers to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) at Prime Minister's Questions on 17 September 2003, Official Report, columns 851–52.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Female Entrepreneurs
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Minister for Women what steps the Government are taking to encourage more women to start up small and medium-sized enterprises. [130838]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are committed to creating an environment and a culture that encourages more women to start or grow businesses and provides the necessary help and support. This: is why we launched a national Strategic Framework for Women's
  870W
  Enterprise in May this year to provide a co-ordinated and long-term approach to the development of women's enterprise.

  We are now working with our partners nationally and in the regions to take forward the recommendations of the Framework.

  We are, for example, already engaged with regional development agencies, the Business Link Network and women's enterprise networks to ensure that the need of enterprising women everywhere are properly met.

  Information and Communications Technology
  David Taylor
  To ask the Minister for Women what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on strategies to increase the number of women entering the information and communications technology profession; and if she will make a statement. [130839]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI and DfES are working together to reverse the under-representation of women in ICT. I announced in April a new strategy to improve the participation of women in science, engineering and technology careers. The Government Skills Strategy is creating new opportunities for women to develop the skills they need.

  Women's Refuges
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister for Women what plans she has to increase funding to women's refuges. [130840]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are committed to increasing the full range of accommodation options for victims of domestic violence, including more refuges and better help to support victims to stay in their own homes if appropriate. The Government is investing through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister £8.9 million this financial year in refuges provision and the Housing Corporation has allocated an additional £9.9 million.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for Women how many questions directed to her remain unanswered. [130768]

  Ms Hewitt
  Of those questions tabled for answer up to and including 17 September 2003, there is one question remaining unanswered.

  Public Appointments
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Minister for Women what steps she is taking to encourage more women to apply for public appointments. [130834]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has set a target of between 45 to 50 per cent, women in public appointments made by our Department. This target is supported by a number of initiatives my right hon. Friend has led over the past two years; for example, a national outreach campaign targeted at over 2,000 women from diverse backgrounds. These women are well represented at local and regional level, and have many skills needed to be successful when applying for national appointments.
  871W
  Our Department also produced a practical guide to enable others to carry on this outreach work and over 3,000 have been distributed. As part of the outreach programme, we have also commissioned research to learn more about what barriers women face when applying for public appointments.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Output
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent reports she has received on the impact of trends in manufacturing output in the UK upon the economy in the south-east. [130828]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State receives regular reports from a variety of sources on manufacturing output at both the national and regional level.

  Coal Industry Investment Aid Scheme
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects the first payments to be made under the Coal Industry Investment Aid Scheme. [130829]

  Mr. Timms
  Applications for first period aid are being assessed at the moment. First payments to successful projects will be made as soon as possible after the decisions have been made.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with

  Court Order

  Advertiser

  6 March 2002

  Interim Injunction CMARS

  Planet Telecom plc 192enquiries.com Ltd.Peter Hutcheon John Tonge

  30 May 2002

  Final Injunction CMARS

  Data Protection Agency Services Ltd.Michael Sullivan

  25 June 2002

  Interim Injunction CMARS

  DPARS Ltd.Gary McNeish(both also trading as Data Protection Act Registration Service)

  10 July 2002

  Court Order(Stop Now Orders (EC Directive)Regulations 2001)

  John Christopher Ineson Blake Hamilton Ltd.Property Associates (UK) Ltd.

  22 July 2002

  Final Injunction CMARS

  Planet Telecom pic Peter Hutcheon John Tonge

  12 November 2002

  Final Injunction CMARS

  DPARS Ltd.Gary McNeish(both trading as Data Protection Act Registration Service)

  7 August 2003

  Interim Injunction CMARS

  Christopher Yewdall

  Manufacturing Advisory Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what analysis has been conducted of the effect of the Manufacturing Advisory Service on small and medium-sized companies. [130832]

  Ms Hewitt
  We receive regular reports of the impact of the Manufacturing Advisory Service on the companies it helps, most of whom are SMEs. These 872W
  the Inland Revenue on the taxation position of small businesses run by married couples. [130830]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The DTI has regular contact with the Inland Revenue on the taxation of small businesses generally including those run by married couples.

  Advertising
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further measures she is planning to prevent the publication of misleading advertising; and if she will list those advertisers issued with court orders in each year since 2000 to prevent the continued publication of misleading advertising. [129937]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Non-broadcast advertising is controlled mainly by self-regulation under which the Advertising Standards Authority is responsible for ensuring compliance with the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing. Providing legislative backing to the Code is the Control of Misleading Advertising Regulations 1988, which empowers the Office of Fair Trading to investigate complaints about misleading advertisements, and where necessary, to seek injunctions against further publication. OFT also have powers under the Enterprise Act (previously under the Stop Now Orders (EC Directive) Regulations 2001) to take action against misleading advertising that harms the collective interests of consumers. These powers are shared by Trading Standards Services. I have no plans to introduce any further measures in relation to misleading advertising.

  During the period 2002–03, OFT obtained written assurances/undertakings in 25 cases. OFT obtained no Court Orders in 2000 or 2001. Court Orders obtained during 2002–03 were as follows:

  reports are very impressive. We are seeing substantial improvements in the productivity of companies that are taking advantage of its in-depth consultancy service.

  Broadband
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the latest figures are for coverage by broadband in(a) urban and (b) rural areas. [130568]
  873W
  Mr. Timms
  Some 80 per cent, of UK households have access to a mass-market broadband solution targeted at residential or small business customers. The most recent statistics giving the breakdown for urban and rural areas are from June 2003. At that point national coverage was 76 per cent., urban and suburban areas, 92 per cent. and rural areas, 28 per cent.

  Chemical Exports
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under what circumstances chemicals banned for use in the UK can be manufactured in this country and exported outside the EU. [126693]

  Mr. Browne
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no absolute prohibition on the export to non-EU countries of chemicals banned for use in the UK.

  However, arrangements to ensure that recipient countries are aware of the potential hazards of imported chemicals are provided by EC Regulation 304/2003 (copy in the Library). This regulation implements the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC) for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade. The PIC procedure gives importing countries the opportunity to refuse, or apply conditions to, imports of certain dangerous chemicals.

  Company Contracts
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information her Department gathers on the placement of contracts with United Kingdom companies by(a) US and (b) US/UK business partnerships; and if she will make a statement. [130406]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This information is not collected in this form.

  Consumer Credit Legislation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will set out her timetable for reforming consumer credit legislation. [131256]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I intend to publish a White Paper on consumer credit this autumn. This will include the timetable for reforming consumer credit legislation.

  Copyright
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the extent of infringement of copyright t in the downloading of music from the internet; and what further action she proposes to prevent it. [130196]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), on 15 September 2003,Official Report, columns 538–39.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans her Department has in cases where Her Majesty's Customs and Excise seize 874W
  imported goods for inspection to limit recovery of their costs to businesses which are subsequently found to be importing counterfeit and illegal goods. [129386]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Department has no plans to seek changes to the EC Regulation applying to seizure of counterfeit and pirate goods at the border which governs activity in this area. The policy in and operation of this Regulation is for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, which in turn, is the responsibility of my colleagues in the Treasury.

  Debt Management
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licensed debt collectors operate in the UK; how many complaints have been received regarding the conduct of debt collectors, in each year since 2000; how many complaints have been upheld in each year since 2000; how many debt collectors have been banned from practising in each year since 2000; and if she will place in the Library a list of banned debt collectors. [129938]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Office of Fair Trading is responsible for licensing and investigating complaints regarding debt collectors and other bodies involved in the consumer credit market.

  The current consumer credit licence categories do not distinguish between debt collection and certain other forms of licensed lending. However, a recent survey by the Credit Services Association, a major trade body for the sector, suggests there are approximately 400 debt collection businesses in the UK, 206 of whom are its members.

  Separate debt collection complaint data have not been recorded over the full period in question.

  In January 2003, the OFT set up a specialist team to deal with complaints regarding debt collection; issuing debt collection guidance in July 2003, which sets out practices affecting fitness to hold a consumer credit licence. There are currently 82 complaints under investigation.

  In 2000, the OFT issued 20 debt collectors with notices that it was minded to revoke, refuse or vary licences; 10 in 2001 and five in 2002 to March 2003.

  Data on adverse determinations have not been recorded over the period in question by industry type, and it is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of debt collectors that have had their licence refused or revoked at this time.

  Where there is insufficient evidence to recommend formal action, the OFT also issues warning letters to companies. This activity helps to secure compliance and enables prompt action if future evidence of breaches is received.

  Data on how many debt collectors have been banned in each year since 2000 have not been collated and this could be done only at disproportionate cost. The Consumer Credit Public Register includes details of everyone holding a licence, everyone who has applied for one, or had one revoked, suspended or varied. It is held by the Office of Fair Trading, and the public can search the public register by telephone or visit in person.

  Electricity Supply (Subsidies)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what public subsidies have been made available to electricity suppliers in each year since 1983. [128301]

  Mr. Timms
  There have been no public subsidies to electricity suppliers since privatisation. I am not aware of any subsidies before privatisation, but confirmation of this could be made only at disproportionate cost.

  The Government have, of course, made a credit facility available to British Energy while the company agrees and implements its restructuring plan.

  Singapore Issues
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the attitude of the developing countries to the EU's Singapore issues. [131253]

  Ms Hewitt
  The EU does not have exclusive ownership of the Singapore issues, all WTO Members agreed to include it as part of the Doha Development Agenda in 2001.

  Although we have supported the EU in its mandate on the Singapore issues, we have always made clear that concerns of developing countries need to be taken into account—especially in respect of negotiating capacity. I myself have for some time made it clear, both publicly and privately, that while I strongly support more foreign direct investment going to developing countries, it is not a priority of this government to launch negotiations on an investment agreement.

  At Cancun, the Commission were made aware of developing country concerns on the proposed WTO agreements on investment and competition. On the final day of the Ministerial Conference, Commissioner Lamy, with the backing of the EU delegations, offered to drop the proposal to start negotiations on WTO investment and competition agreements completely.

  Foreign Workers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures her Department is taking to prevent the exploitation of foreign workers on low wages by(a) British companies and (b) foreign companies doing business in the United Kingdom. [129393]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The minimum wage was introduced to help prevent the exploitation of workers. It applies to nearly all workers with contracts in the UK, regardless of their nationality or that of their employers, and it is enforced by the Inland Revenue on this basis.

  In addition, where the DTI becomes aware of a potential problem in connection with an employment agency, steps are taken to address it. For example, when DTI became aware of allegations about the mistreatment by agencies of Portuguese agricultural workers in the UK, contact was made immediately with the Portuguese Government to offer help in ensuring Portuguese agricultural workers en route to the UK are fully aware of their rights under EU and British law and know where to go to present any evidence of improper practice or abuse. UK and Portuguese officials and the
  876W
  Citizens Advice Bureau are currently working together on the production and distribution in the UK and Portugal of a leaflet in Portuguese giving guidance on employment rights under UK and EU law, and advising of sources of support and advice for workers.

  Holiday Companies
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are in place to ensure that holiday companies provide accurate information about the holidays they provide; and if she will make a statement. [129151]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Package tour organisers or retailers are required under The Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 to provide specific information on various elements of a package holiday. Failure to provide such information is a criminal offence. Tour operators who provide misleading information in their brochures may also be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

  In addition, members of the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) are required to meet certain standards, which are specified in the ABTA Code of Conduct.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 17 June 2003,Official Report, column 127W, on Iraq, if she will press the European Commission to include goods from Iraq in the Generalised System of Preferences as soon as possible. [129780]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK has made representation to the European Commission on Iraq's eligibility under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), conveying the UK Government's wish to re-instate GSP in Iraq as soon as possible.

  A key requirement for GSP to be re-instated in Iraq is for administrative co-operation to be restored in the country. The situation with respect to authorities in Iraq continues to be unclear. The UK Government will continue its dialogue with the commission to move this matter forward.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many contracts have been secured by British companies in connection with the reconstruction of Iraq; and what their approximate value is. [128945]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]: According to the latest information we have from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq, British companies have so far secured 18 per cent, of sub contracts awarded by Bechtel, worth approximately £10 million. UK companies have also secured contracts from other organisations funding reconstruction projects in Iraq but we do not have details of the value of these contracts.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to improve the skills base of manufacturing industry. [130825]
  877W
  Jacqui Smith
  My Department published a manufacturing strategy in May 2002; it sets out seven areas of activity for manufacturing success of which one was raising skills and education levels.

  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Education and Skills have since set out in the Governments Skills Strategy launched in July 2003 how we are putting employers centre stage, ensuring they have the right skills to support their businesses and organisations.

  This Skills Strategy applies to the manufacturing industry as to other industries and all areas of UK business.

  OFCOM
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Cabinet Office on updating Schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 to make OFCOM subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner; and when an appropriate order will be made to amend Schedule 2 of the Act. [127200]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 8 September 2003]: The intention was to make an order by the date on which the Communications Act received Royal Assent. In the event, however, the process could not be completed before the summer recess, owing to the need for various interested parties to be consulted on certain points of detail that arose during drafting. Arrangements are now in hand to make an order in good time to ensure that OFCOM is within the Parliamentary Commissioner's jurisdiction before it acquires its new functions.

  Office for Civil Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many requests for information on the Office for Civil Nuclear Security were received from the media between April 2002 and March 2003; how many requests were refused; what the reasons for refusal were in each case; and if she will make a statement. [123656]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department does not keep this information.

  Oil Pipelines (Caucasus)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she discussed with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the environmental impacts of the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan Oil Pipeline Project; and if she will make a statement. [130027]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 16 September 2003]: My officials are in regular contact with DEFRA officials regarding the ETC project

  Cover will only be provided if ECGD are satisfied that the relevant environmental, social and human rights impacts have been addressed and that the financial and project risks are acceptable.

  Omega Site (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the 878W
  future impact on employment in Warrington of the development of the Omega site; and if she will make a statement. [129927]

  Ms Hewitt
  Omega South is one of the North West Development Agency's strategic regional sites. It has the potential to create some 12,000 jobs and it is essential that a development of this scale and significance is consistent with both national and regional planning policies.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many questions directed to her remain unanswered. [130752]

  Ms Hewitt
  Of those questions tabled for answer up to and including 17 September, there are 90 questions remaining unanswered.

  Personnel Administration
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff were employed in personnel administration within the Department in each year since 1997. [130815]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Given the changes to the structure and organisation of the Department since 1997, I am unable to provide comparative figures immediately. I will write to the hon. Member giving her what information we have available.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the closure of the post office at Priors Park, Tewkesbury. [129527]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 September 2003]: Consultation on a proposal to close Priors Park post office was announced by Post Office Ltd. on 4 July. Their decision to proceed with closure was notified on 22 August, and I understand that the office is due to close on 29 September.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on post office closures in the south-east. [130375]

  Mr. Timms
  Post office closures are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. I understand from them that in the year to end March 2003, there were net closures of 39 post-offices in south-east England, of which 19 were under the urban reinvention programme. In the quarter to end June 2003, there were 56 net closures of which 50 were under the urban reinvention programme.

  Property Ownership Rights
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the impact of delays in establishing property ownership rights in developing countries upon British companies trading in such countries. [129429]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have not made an assessment in these terms.

  Renewable Obligation Certificates
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to reform the arrangements for renewable obligation certificate trading, with specific reference to the protection of traders affected by losses caused by a supplier going out of business. [130585]

  Mr. Timms
  I am aware of the concerns of traders likely to affected by the potential shortfall in the Renewables Buy-Out Fund, as a consequence of TXU's going into administration.

  However since the extent of any possible shortfall will not be clear until 1 October, it is too early at this stage to assess the impact on the renewables market or to assess whether there is a need to make any changes to the renewables obligation.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to ensure compliance under arrangements for renewable obligation certificate trading. [130586]

  Mr. Timms
  Under the Renewables Obligation Order 2002, Ofgem have responsibility for monitoring compliance with the Renewables Obligation. Licensed electricity suppliers must demonstrate compliance to Ofgem by 1 October either through redeeming Renewable Obligation Certificates or paying the buy out price.

  Thorp
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the value of investments in Thorp. [129396]

  Mr. Timms
  An assessment of the economics of Thorp was published in 1993 as part of the public consultation process concerning operation of the plant. This assessment may be found in the Library of the House. It states that the costs associated with constructing Thorp amounted to £5.5 billion. It also explains that the contracts for the baseload period of the plant's operation provide for recovery of full capital costs as well as the on-going operating costs and provide for the operator, BNFL, to make a profit. Details of BNFL's financial performance—including the performance of its spent fuel management business—are provided in the company's annual reports which are also in the Libraries of the House.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from the Irish Minister for the Environment on projected closure dates for the Thorp nuclear plant at Sellafield. [128808]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry received a letter dated 26 August from Ireland's Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government which seeks information about the future operation of Thorp in the light of extensive recent media reports on this matter in Ireland.

  Unsecured Loans
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what powers there are to restrict young adults in borrowing large amounts of money in unsecured loans; and what plans she has for further action to limit the amount of money young adults are allowed to borrow in unsecured loans; [129752]

  (2) whether financial services companies are required to assess a young adult client's ability to repay loans before allowing a loan; [129753]

  (3) how many people under 25 are being prosecuted for non-payment of loans. [129754]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 17 September 2003]: There are currently no powers to restrict the access of any individual over the age of 18 to credit.

  Lenders, who have signed up to voluntary codes of practice such as the British Banking Code or the Finance and Leasing Association Code, provide the majority of credit. These require them to assess a consumer's ability to repay any credit they are seeking to borrow. I intend to publish a White Paper on consumer credit this autumn, which will include proposals to require all lenders lend responsibly.

  Figures are not collated centrally for how many individuals are prosecuted for non-payment of loans and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  World Trade Negotiations
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to promote the interests of developing countries in world trade negotiations; and if she will make a statement. [130821]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement to the House on Wednesday 17 September 2003,Official Report, columns 861–63 and I refer the hon. Member to that statement.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she will make at Cancun with respect to improving property ownership structures and recognition in developing countries. [130036]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 16 September 2003]: The Government have always made clear that the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) should provide real benefits for developing countries. We took the opportunity of the World Trade Organisation Ministerial talks in Cancun to press for progress in the various trade and development issues contained in the DDA.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral statement made in the House on 17 September.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether(a) the EU Commissioner and (b) she asked the Chairman to reconsider the closure of the WTO meeting at Cancun. [131246]

  Ms Hewitt
  I and a number of EU colleagues asked Commissioner Lamy at a meeting of the EU Council on Sunday to urge the Chairman to reconsider the closure
  881W
  of the conference. The EU along with other WTO members felt that with more time, it would have been possible to reach an agreement which would have benefited both developing and developed countries.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the United Kingdom tried to change the EU policy at the Cancun Summit in the light of the views of developing countries. [131247]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK played a major role in supporting the EU's negotiating mandate at Cancun. We were able to use our particular links with Commonwealth countries and others to understand their concerns and to explain to them the EU position and vice versa. We and others were able to relay to the Commission the concerns which some developing countries had on some issues e.g. the Singapore issues. I myself have for some time made it clear publicly and privately that, while I strongly support developing countries receiving more foreign direct investment, it is not a priority of this government to launch negotiations on an investment agreement.

  It was Commissioner Lamy who took the decision, with agreement of all EU members states to drop the proposal to launch negotiations on the WTO agreements on investment and competition.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the United Kingdom delegation to the Cancun Summit departed from the EU line during the plenary sessions. [131248]

  Ms Hewitt
  No. We fully supported the EU position during the plenary sessions at Cancun.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she had with the EU Trade Commissioner during the course of the Cancun Summit. [131249]

  Ms Hewitt
  I met Commissioner Lamy at two European Councils. I also had informal discussions with him.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the cost to the UK economy of the recent collapse of the talks at the World Trade Organisation Fifth Ministerial in Cancun. [131254]

  Ms Hewitt
  The lack of progress at Cancun was disappointing, but it does not mean that the Doha Development Round of trade liberalisation is over.

  The benefits to developing and developed world economies from a successful round which achieves real liberalisation are considerable.

  A number of studies have attempted to quantify these gains. The size of the estimated gains vary significantly depending on, among other things, the scale of liberalisation assumed to be implemented, the timing of liberalisation and the range of benefits taken into account.

  These studies do not separately identify the effects on the UK economy, but they do suggest that the EU as a whole would benefit from trade liberalisation. A study by the European Commission1, for example, estimated the gains to the EU from a global 50 per cent. cut in
  882W
  protection would be in the region of $92 billion. A reasonable assumption is that the gains to the UK would be roughly proportional to our share of EU GDP and external trade (around 17 per cent.). This would imply annual income gains in the region of $16 billion. Another study by Michigan University2 suggests that global elimination of trade barriers could increase EU incomes by as much as $500 billion. Again, assuming the UK gains proportionately, this could mean an annual boost to UK incomes of over $70 billion. The benefits would feed through gradually as liberalisation is implemented in many scenarios taking over a decade.

  In addition, a successful round of trade liberalisation is likely to have a more immediate effect by providing a boost to global economic confidence. The scale of this benefit is impossible to predict but would certainly be considerable.
  1 The Millennium Round: An economic appraisal by Nigel Nagarajan 1999.
  2 "CGE Modelling and Analysis of Multilateral and Regional Negotiating Options" Drusilla Brown, Alan Deardoff and Robert Stern Michigan Discussion Paper number 468 2001.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her attendance at the Fifth World Trade Organisation Ministerial held recently in Cancun. [131255]

  Ms Hewitt
  I made a full statement to the House, on my attendance at the recent 5th World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference held in Cancun, on Wednesday 17 September.

TRANSPORT

  Airport Consultation
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received on prospective promoters in respect of(a) the Cliffe airport proposal and (b) other North Kent estuarial airport proposals. [130995]

  Mr. McNulty
  In response to "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" consultation, a number of proposals for new airport capacity that are alternatives to, or variants of, options set out in the Government's consultation document, have been submitted. These include two sites in North Kent and the Marinair proposal for an airport on an island in the Thames estuary.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the identification and recommendation of airport sites for further development in the air transport White Paper will be based on(a) commercial viability and (b) availability of private sector funding to meet the full cost. [130996]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are currently analysing the many thousands of responses received to "the Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom" consultation. Ministers will take decisions based on the factual appraisal and views expressed by interested parties, which will help Ministers come to a view on what weight they should attach to different considerations, and how to balance these. Commercial and financial viability are considerations specified in the published SERAS appraisal methodology.
  883W
  The Government intends to publish its conclusions in a White Paper later this year.

  Biofuels
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date under the EU Directive 2003/30/EC Article 4 he is required to set a target for biofuel use in the UK by the end of 2005. [130869]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Directive must be implemented in full by 31 December 2004, but the European Commission has asked member states in advance of this to submit targets for biofuel use in 2005 by July 2004. We will be consulting stakeholders on possible UK targets in early 2004, before deciding on the UK targets.

  Commercial Flights
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many commercial flights were made from British airports in each of the last five years; and what percentage were(a) four hours or longer and (b) four hours or less. [129800]

  Mr. McNulty
  The available information is as follows:

  Commercial air transport movements1: United Kingdom

  Percentage

  Number (thousand)

  Short haul2

  Long haul

  1998

  1,504

  88.6

  11.4

  1999

  1,580

  88.6

  11.4

  2000

  1,663

  88.7

  11.3

  2001

  1,690

  89.0

  11.0

  2002

  1,683

  89.2

  10.8

  1 Landings and take-offs of aircraft engaged in commercial air transport. Includes all scheduled movements (loaded or empty) and loaded charter movements, but excludes empty positioning flights.

  2 Domestic flights, flights between the UK and Europe or North Africa, and flights to/from oil rigs.

  Source:

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek amendments to the Warsaw Convention to permit claims for compensation by air travellers who suffer deep vein thrombosis. [130975]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Warsaw Convention will be subject to no further amendment or reform. The 1999 Montreal Convention, which is due to come into force internationally later this year, will consolidate, update and eventually replace all previous international agreements on air carrier liability, including the 1929 Warsaw Convention.

  The purpose of the Warsaw Convention is to cover risks inherent to travelling by air, not damage occurring co-incidentally while in flight. For this reason, claimants must show that an "accident" had occurred. This question has been considered by the English High Court within the context of Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) and it concluded that such an occurrence does not fall within the accepted understanding of an "accident". I believe the legal framework for establishing liability to be satisfactory and that it is for the courts to decide specific cases within that framework.

  London Underground
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last travelled by London Underground on official business. [130948]

  Mr. Darling
  I last travelled by London Underground on official business on 17 September 2003.

  M6
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received from the Highways Agency about the options for widening the M6 motorway between junctions 11 and 20; and what arrangements he intends to make for public consultation on his plans for this widening. [130978]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency is currently examining options for widening the M6 motorway. This has raised some complex issues and the Agency expects to bring forward further detailed advice early in 2004. Once a scheme has been approved for inclusion in the Targeted Programme of Improvements there would be further statutory and non-statutory procedures including consultation. In the meantime the Highways Agency has been liasing with both affected local authorities and with the Statutory Environmental Bodies in progressing their work.

  Mayor of London
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the Mayor of London. [130949]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministers have regular meetings with the Mayor at which a wide range of transport matters are discussed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport last met the Mayor on 7 September at the Osiris II exercise at Bank station.

  Microsoft
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was paid to Microsoft in licensing fees by his Department and its agencies in each of the last three years; and how much has been budgeted for(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [130682]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since 2000 there have been two Machinery of Government changes affecting what is now the Department of Transport. As a result the number of staff has changed considerably. It is not possible to analyse the total cost of licensing to identify where the costs were incurred on behalf of what is now DfT. Therefore the figures given for DfT(c) reflect spend by the Department as it was at the time.

  The amount paid to Microsoft for the last three years is:

  Spend (£)

  Organisation

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Centre of the Department

  DETR

  171,300

  —

  —

  DTLR

  —

  198,400

  DfT

  —

  —

  307,500

  885W

  Spend (£)

  Organisation

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  n/a

  459,900

  489,400

  Driving Standards Agency

  7,900 over two years

  81,000

  Highways Agency

  640,000

  580,000

  175,000

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  0

  0

  291,000

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  3,170

  3,260

  9,380

  Vehicle and Operator Services Agency

  (Previously Vehicle Inspectorate and

  Traffic Area Network)

  100,000

  100,000

  136,400

  Budgets for spend in the current year, 2003–04, and future years are withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Motorways
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motorway service areas there are in England; and, of these, how many have CCTV cameras installed in public parking areas to guard against thefts of, and from, vehicles. [130976]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are 69 motorway service areas (MSAs) in England.

  Close Circuit Television coverage of the public parking areas is provided at 14 MSAs. Most MSA operators offer full CCTV coverage of the commercial areas of their sites. In instances where MSA operators are aware of a problem of theft from parked vehicles, particularly within the lorry compounds, they have taken separate action.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it a condition of all future licences to operate motorway service areas that CCTV cameras be installed in public parking areas. [130977]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Motorway service areas (MSAs) are private sector enterprises, subject to the normal planning processes. It is for them to decide on the most appropriate form of security measures at each site. The Government do require certain minimum requirements as a condition of their signing and access from the motorway. It would be inappropriate for these to include a stipulation on how security at each site should be provided.

  Redhill Aerodrome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what analysis he has made of the air safety aspects of plans to develop Redhill Aerodrome, with special reference to provisions for missed approach procedures; and if he will make a statement; [130691]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the height above the M23 of incoming aircraft if the proposal to develop Redhill Aerodrome were to proceed. [130692]

  Mr. McNulty
  In response to "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" consultation, a proposal for the development of Redhill aerodrome has been submitted. This proposal is being considered in the on-going analysis of responses to the consultation.

  Transport Infrastructure
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much transport infrastructure maintenance cost the Government in each year from 1990 to 2003. [130455]

  Mr. McNulty
  Transport infrastructure maintenance is taken to encompass maintenance on Road and Rail only, and is detailed as follows.

  Table 1 shows the cost of maintenance from 1991–2002 road maintenance. Numbers are as detailed in the National Road Maintenance Condition Survey (NRMCS) annual report. These numbers are also given as cash prices.

  Rail figures are detailed in Table 1 for the years 1996–2003, and have been taken from the Railtrack 2001 Network Management Statement (2001), and the 2003 Network Rail Annual Return. These have also been shown in cash prices. It is important to note that these figures also may include non-Government expenditure, but it is not possible to disaggregate this out.

  Rail figures prior to 1996 are not immediately accessible and to obtain these numbers would present a disproportionate cost.

  Road maintenance

  Rail maintenance

  2001–02 prices2

  Cash prices2

  2001–02 prices1

  Cash prices1

  Non-trunk roads

  Trunk roads3

  Non-trunk roads

  Trunk roads3

  1991–92

  —

  —

  2,401

  741

  1,803

  556

  1992–93

  —

  —

  2,379

  796

  1,844

  617

  1993–94

  —

  —

  2,409

  838

  1,913

  665

  1994–95

  —

  —

  2,387

  841

  1,921

  677

  1995–96

  —

  —

  2,225

  665

  1,842

  550

  1996–97

  840

  739

  1,970

  595

  1,683

  508

  1997–98

  780

  707

  1,793

  648

  1,578

  571

  1998–99

  747

  696

  1,742

  655

  1,575

  592

  1999–2000

  702

  670

  1,834

  716

  1,699

  664

  2000–01

  725

  698

  1,907

  757

  1,807

  717

  2001–02

  —

  950

  2,168

  668

  2,105

  649

  2002–03

  —

  1,184

  —

  —

  2,515

  741

  1 1996–97 to 2000–01 taken from Railtrack 2001 Network Management Statement. 2000–01 to 2002–03 Cash prices taken from Network Rail 2003 Annual Return.

  2 2001–02 prices taken from the National Road Maintenance Condition Survey (NRMCS) for road maintenance.

  3 Including motorways.

  US Warship Disposal
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of towing former US naval ships off the North East coast on their way to be broken up. [130727]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) are aware of proposals to bring ships from the US reserve fleet to the UK for dismantling at a facility in Teesside.

  Accessible pollutants will be removed from the ships before transit, as required by the Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes. The MCA monitors the standards of vessels entering UK waters and co-ordinates any response to pollution outside of harbour areas via the National Contingency Plan for Pollution from Shipping

  887W
  and Offshore Installations. It is empowered to take action should any pollution incident occur within the UK Pollution Control Zone.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether UK agreement to a passage plan for the proposed tow of former US naval ships to the UK is required in advance of the vessels leaving the US. [130728]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is in close liaison with the US Government and the companies involved with these ships. A formal passage plan will be agreed prior to the ships leaving the US and will also be agreed with the French and Belgian Governments.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to extend reduced rates of vehicle excise duty to cars converted to LPG/autogas that were registered before March 2001; and if he will extend the powershift programme of grants to cars that are more than five years old. [130726]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Rates and structure of vehicle excise duty are a matter for the Chancellor in his budget. In deciding these rates he weighs a large number of social, economic, environmental and other factors.

  The Chancellor announced in Budget 2003 that the Government would be consulting stakeholders on how best to ensure that future support for road fuel gases continued to reflect environmental and other policy objectives, with a view to announcing decisions on future duty rates and other forms of support in the 2003 Pre-budget Report. A joint Department for Transport, Treasury and Customs and Excise consultation document "Road fuel gases and their contribution to clean low-carbon transport: Establishing a consistent and durable framework of Government support" discussed the issues and invited comments by 17 September. The Government are now considering the responses received.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made with implementing the 48 hour working week for workers in the transport sector. [130973]

  Mr. McNulty
  On 1 August 2003, the Department of Trade and Industry implemented "The Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2003". These apply the 48 hour average working week to non-mobile workers in the transport sector and drivers of vehicles subject to domestic drivers' hours rules in the road transport sector.

  Mobile workers who are affected by the EU drivers' hours rules, will be subject to the average 48 hour week from March 2005, under the sector specific road transport directive (2002/15/EC). The Department for Transport has consulted and received comments from key stakeholders in the road transport industry. We will also publish a partial regulatory impact assessment and consultation document shortly, on our plans to implement the directive into UK law.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the Government are doing to equip hospitals in Afghanistan. [129446]

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

  Healthcare is not currently one of DFID's focus areas in Afghanistan, and we are therefore not involved in equipping hospitals. Nevertheless, we have funded a consultant that has worked with the Ministry of Health on hospital management.

  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:.s programmed for the health sector to help reduce infant and maternal mortality by providing a basic healthcare 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 works 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 healthcare 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 three 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.

  AIDS/HIV
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the Government is doing to help those suffering from AIDS and HIV in the developing world. [129059]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Department for International Development (DFID) recognises that the HIV/AIDS epidemic is one of the most important development challenges. In recognition of this DFID has increased HIV/AIDS related bilateral expenditure from £38 million in 1997–98 to over £270 million in 2002–03.
  889W
  Intensive bi-lateral action on HIV/AIDS is under way including in Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. At a global level, the UK Government makes significant contributions to support HIV/AIDS programmes of multilateral organisations, including the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations in a coherent effort to combat this disease.

  The UK has pledged US$280 million to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, up to the year 2008 and has committed £14 million to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and £16 million to the Medical Research Council's Microbicides Development Programme.

  Arms Proliferation
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether there is a consensus among European partners on the proliferation of small arms in developing countries. [129854]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Over the last five years European states, through the European Union and its accession countries, have consistently demonstrated a commitment to support efforts to tackle the proliferation of small arms in developing countries through continuing EU programmes. Currently these programmes are enacted as part of the Joint Action on the European Union's contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and uncontrolled spread of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), adopted on 12 July 2002 by the European Council.

  The EU aims to strengthen the efforts to reduce the availability and supply of SALW to areas of conflict or potential conflict, to contribute to the development of a range of international measures to limit the demand for SALW in such areas, and to help governments to cope with the problems these weapons cause.

  The EU currently supports programmes in Cambodia, in central America through the UN Regional Centre in Lima and in conjunction with UNDP in south eastern Europe (the South Eastern Europe Clearinghouse on Small Arms in Belgrade). EU supported projects in South Ossetia and Albania have recently been completed. In the last three years, the EU has committed around €7.5million to these programmes, through the Common Foreign and Security Policy Budget.

  In June 2003, EU member states agreed a Joint Position on brokering activities which requires members states to enact legislation to regulate activities of brokers, including brokering of small arms and light weapons.

  Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline
  Adam Price
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what representations the Department has received about human rights violations relating to the construction of the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline. [129199]
  890W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID and other Government Departments have received representations from several international and local NGOs about the human rights implications of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline. Officials have held meetings to discuss this issue with NGOs. We have also received correspondence from Members of Parliament and members of the public.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the latest discussions with regard to the use of public money via the(a) World Bank, (b) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and (c) Export Credits Guarantee Department for the Baku- Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. [129200]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID's interest in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) project is as a shareholder in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the World Bank Group. As a shareholder, DFID has a responsibility to ensure that these institutions have properly assessed this project, including possible social and environmental impacts. EBRD and the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group are currently carrying out their normal thorough screening and safeguards procedures on the project. Once these procedures are completed, it is anticipated that they will present formal project proposals to their Executive Boards for discussion. As is standard procedure, DFID will make its decision on how to vote on the BTC project once it has received these formal proposals.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is responsible for the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD). ECGD is currently undertaking its due diligence process for the BTC project. The project sponsors are seeking cover from ECGD for the supply of UK goods and services, and for UK investments related to the project. Cover would only be given if the Department were satisfied that the relevant environmental, social and human rights impacts had been properly addressed, and that the financial and project risks were acceptable.

  Central Africa
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how much assistance he gave to(a) Rwanda, (b) Uganda and (c) Angola in each of the last five years, broken down by subject under which the assistance was allocated; and if he will make a statement. [130659]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has a policy of focusing its resources in Africa. Rwanda and Uganda are both countries where we have strong development partnerships. We are currently developing our plans for Angola now that the war has ended there.

  £

  Rwanda

  2002–03

  Direct Budget Support

  22,032,000

  Technical Co-operation

  6,723,000

  Grants & Aid in Kind

  1,423,000

  Project or Sector Aid

  2,348,000

  32,526,000

  891W

  £

  Rwanda

  2001–02

  Direct Budget Support

  18,586,000

  Technical Co-operation

  6,373,000

  Project or Sector Aid

  1,488,000

  Grants & Aid in Kind

  741,000

  27,189,000

  2000–01

  Direct Budget Support

  25,400,000

  Technical Co-operation

  5,589,000

  Project or Sector Aid

  1,052,000

  Grants & Aid in Kind

  837,000

  32,878,000

  1999–2000

  Direct Budget Support

  10,000,000

  Technical Co-operation

  2,440,000

  Humanitarian Assistance

  1,170,000

  Grants & Aid in Kind

  784,000

  14,394,000

  1998–99

  Direct Budget Support

  10,000,000

  Technical Co-operation

  1,356,000

  Grants & Aid in Kind

  1,281,000

  Humanitarian Assistance

  1,005,000

  13,642,000

  Uganda

  2002–03

  Direct Budget Support

  17,500,000

  Technical Cooperation

  15,537,000

  Project or Sector Aid

  13,846,000

  Grants & Aid in Kind

  5,736,000

  55,142,000

  2001–02

  Direct Budget Support

  35,000,000

  Technical Co-operation

  14,679,000

  Project or Sector Aid.

  13,974,000

  Grants & Aid in Kind

  4,563,000

  68,476,000

  2000–01

  Direct Budget Support

  45,000,000

  Project or Sector Aid

  17,856,000

  Technical Co-operation

  15,844,000

  Grants & Aid in Kind

  7,323,000

  86,342,000

  1999–2000

  Project or Sector Aid

  41,467,000

  Direct Budget Support

  16,000,000

  Technical Cooperation

  17,287,000

  Grants & Aid in Kind

  5,910,000

  81,206,000

  1998–99

  Direct Budget Support

  17,000,000

  Technical Co-operation

  11,928,000

  Grants & Aid in Kind

  5,500,000

  Project or Sector Aid

  17,785,000

  52,574,000

  Angola

  2002–03

  Technical Co-operation

  3,970,000

  Grants & Other Aid in Kind

  184,000

  Humanitarian Assistance

  5,734,000

  9,888,000

  2001–02

  Technical Co-operation

  1,873,000

  Grants & Other Aid in Kind

  56,000

  Humanitarian Assistance

  1,825,000

  3,754,000

  2000–01

  Technical Co-operation

  1,827,000

  Grants & Other Aid in Kind

  371,000

  Humanitarian Assistance

  2,240,000

  4,438,000

  892W

  1999–2000

  Technical Co-operation

  1,243,000

  Grants & Other Aid in Kind

  625,000

  Humanitarian Assistance

  3,236,000

  5,104,000

  1998–99

  Technical Co-operation

  623,000

  Grants & Other Aid in Kind

  1,185,000

  Humanitarian Assistance

  2,500,000

  4,308,000

  Economic Activity Development
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment the Department has made of(a) the extent of extra-legal activity in developing countries and (b) the impact of extra-legal activity on economic development in these countries; and what assistance the Government are offering to increase legal economic activity in developing countries. [129313]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  We are not aware of any comprehensive assessment of the scale of extra-legal activity in developing countries. The impact of crime, in particular corruption, transnational organised crime and money laundering, is undoubtedly profound.

  The Department provides a wide range of support to developing countries to help them address these areas. These include developing strong enforcement action against corruption and money laundering, such as strong and effective anti-corruption agencies and financial intelligence units, and establishing the full range of necessary preventive measures, such as strengthening capacity for public sector budgetary and financial management, procurement, accounting and audit; reforming civil service management, enhancing public oversight through strengthened parliamentary committees, developing measures to reduce judicial corruption and supporting civil society to promote transparency and accountability in public life. Helping countries to develop sustained improvements in the climate for productive domestic and foreign investment and facilitating greater private sector development also forms an important part of the Department's work.

  We are pleased that negotiations for the United Nations Convention Against Corruption are nearing completion. This instrument will reflect a global consensus on the importance of tackling corruption and improving international co-operation, including the return of corruptly-acquired assets to the country of origin. The UK has played an active role in these negotiations.

  Export Control Act
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development pursuant to his answer of 18 June 2003,Official Report, column 241W, on the Export Control Act, whether the Department made an assessment of how the secondary legislation on export controls would (a) affect demands on departmentally-funded projects and (b) affect stability in developing countries. [129803]
  893W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  A specific separate assessment was not undertaken but clearly a strengthening of controls on the trade in arms will reduce the availability of arms, which fuel conflicts, erode security and stability and undermine sustainable development, thereby making it easier for development goals to be reached.

  Immunisation Programmes
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent discussions the Department has had with the World Health Organisation regarding the availability of vaccinations for immunisation programmes in developing countries. [129447]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Department of International Development (DFID) works closely with the World Health Organisation (WHO) across a wide range of health issues. This includes working with WHO on the generic issues of improving access to health commodities and to supporting specific programme needs. DFID was also until recently a Board member of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI). GAVI is a public-private partnership focused on increasing children's access to vaccines in poor countries and discussions focus on issues around the availability of vaccinations in developing countries. The World Health Organisation (WHO) and UNICEF also participate in that Board. The UK contribution to GAVI lasts till 2005 and amounts to £35 million.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment the Department has made of the conditions of the temporary prison outside Baghdad International Airport run by the coalition forces. [130345]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has made no such assessment.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many Iraqi children the Department estimates have been detained at the temporary prison outside Baghdad International Airport run by coalition forces. [130346]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID does not hold such information.

  Kosovo
  Adam Price
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent humanitarian assessment the Department has made of the aftermath of the Kosovo conflict in 1999. [130349]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has aimed to assess the post-conflict situation in Kosovo in partnership with other international agencies, and with the Kosovo authorities. In December 2001, we worked with the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, the International Organisation for Migration, the Dutch Government and the Statistical Office of Kosovo to produce Kosovo's first comprehensive poverty assessment. This showed that approximately 50 per cent. of Kosovo's population was living in poverty, with 894W
  12 per cent. in extreme poverty. The assessment has since been used to assist the design and monitoring of social services and benefits.

  Since then, we have focused on building the capacity of the Kosovo institutions to monitor social service delivery and poverty outcomes. We remain in discussion with other agencies on possible implementation of a second poverty assessment, and on the support needed by the Kosovo authorities to enable them to monitor poverty and deliver services effectively.

  Pakistan
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent initiatives have been taken to help fund and encourage the education of girls in Pakistan. [129060]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  All of DFID's education projects in Pakistan have a strong equity focus.

  At the national level, DFID is supporting improvements to education management information systems so as to better monitor girl's education, through for example:
  the Northern Areas Education Project (£6 million) supports increased female enrolment and participation in management and delivery through improved sector management and the development of community schools. Girls' enrolment in the Northern Areas at primary level has increased from 29,438 in 1996–97 to 52,538 in 2002–03 (an increase of 78 per cent.);
  the North West Frontier Province Education Project (£6.5 million) includes support for public-private-community partnerships which are shown to increase the participation of girls; and
  the planned Azad Jammu and Kashmir community education project (£650,000) aims to sustain improvements in access to and the quality of schooling, particularly for girls.

  The EC is also supporting education sector reform with a programme of €59 million over the period 2002–06. The UK contributes approximately 19 per cent. of the EC programme resource.

  Poverty (Middle East)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent assessment he has made of how many people are living in poverty in(a) the West Bank, (b) Gaza and (c) East Jerusalem. [129057]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Poverty in the Palestinian Occupied Territories has increased dramatically since the intifada started in September 2000. According to the most recent World Bank assessment, 60 per cent. of Palestinians, 1.9 million people, are living on less than $2 a day. In the Gaza Strip, the level is as high as 75 per cent.

  Property Ownership Rights
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what support the Department gives to developing countries to improve the systems they operate to establish property ownership rights. [129302]
  895W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Over the last five years, DFID has supported developing countries to establish effective and equitable policies in relation to land and property, together with fair and efficient systems to establish and administer property rights, especially in Africa. Since this is invariably costly and long term, we seek to do this in partnership with others such as the international and regional development banks and the European Union. In Ghana and Malawi we are working alongside the World Bank and others to help establish practical, low-cost, and locally managed systems for land administration. In Uganda, Tanzania and Rwanda we have supported inclusive processes of debate and consultation leading to new policies and laws on land and property and implementation plans. We are about to embark on a similar process in Kenya and are in the process of identifying how best to assist in South Africa. In India and Bangladesh we have sponsored the development of new alliances and partnerships to secure the tenure of vulnerable groups, the regularisation and improvement of informal low-income urban settlements, assistance to low-income households in accessing land, and the piloting of a community led finance facility for poor communities to manage upgrading, resettlement and infrastructure projects in partnership with local authorities and the banking sector. In Guyana we are about to complete a project for and the establishment of the regularisation of a new Lands and Surveys Commission and the associated regularisation of tenure rights.

  Globally, DFID supports efforts by the World Bank to establish and implement coherent and inclusive policies to secure and administer property rights in the developing world, and the Department is supporting UN-Habitat in the development of its monitoring system for MDG Target 11 'Improving the lives of 100 million slum dwellers by 2020', for which one indicator is secure tenure.

  My Department is also funding research into the promotion of intermediate forms of tenure in urban areas, effective systems for the management of common property, and the improvement of administrative procedures so as to reduce the costs of legal and appropriate shelter for the urban poor.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment the Department has made of the ability of poor people in developing countries to realise the value of property which they own; and what assessment the Department has made of the impact that property ownership regulations and systems in their country have on the ability of poor people in developing countries to release the capital in their property. [129303]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  has found that in many developing countries poor people cannot realise the value of property they own. Their property rights are often informal and there are legal, administrative and financial barriers to poor people securing formal rights to land and property. However the department has also found that the promotion of property and private land titling and universal markets in land, as practised in developed countries, is not always appropriate. In many cases property ownership systems fail to recognise legitimate customary rights established over generations including those held by community groups. Standard 896W
  models for titling land and property can sometimes marginalise the rights of the poor while favouring the better off.

  The links between property rights and the ability to access credit and financial services are complex and context-specific. The department has found that the ability of the poor to accumulate assets, maintain their homes and make investments may not be greatly affected by their tenure status, depending primarily on their income earning and employment opportunities. As a result, whilst there may be good justification for extending formal property rights and simplifying property systems, financial service mechanisms need to be put in place that do not depend on the availability of titled property as collateral.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask th4e Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment the Department has made of the time it takes to establish property ownership rights in developing countries and what impact this has on economic development in these countries. [129316]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  has found that property ownership rights in developed countries have been established as a result of economic and social change over long periods. The establishment of systems to administer and regulate property rights has also been a long-term process, although in many circumstances legitimate rights may exist on the ground. In practice, formal procedures established in law for registering and transacting in property rights can be lengthy, complex, costly and inaccessible to the poor. The result is that informal rights and transactions are not recognised, reducing economic opportunities and increasing disputes.

  The department has assessed the strengths and limitations of intermediary forms of tenure and the opportunities to regulate land rights at local and community levels—both of which are procedurally and politically quicker, more practical and less costly than ambitious programmes to establish universal land titles. The department accepts that establishment of appropriate systems of property rights requires the pursuit of coherent objectives by governments over many years.

  South Africa
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the impact of HIV/AIDS on the humanitarian situation in South Africa. [129056]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  All agencies active in responding to the humanitarian crisis in Southern Africa recognise that the high HIV/AIDS infection rates there are both affecting the crisis and being affected by it. In countries such as Zimbabwe, where one in four adults is HIV- positive, current rates of malnutrition and mortality are closely related to the underlying AIDS pandemic. An estimated 2,500 deaths per week in Zimbabwe are due to AIDS.

  We are still learning how HIV/AIDS affects the crisis, including recovery. Evidence from Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe shows that households affected by chronic

  897W
  illness plant fewer crops and can afford fewer inputs like fertiliser. In some cases, households are shifting production to less labour intensive but also less nutritious crops. In addition, governments' capacity to respond to the crisis is undermined by the loss of public sector workers due to AIDS and other factors.

  DFID is taking steps to integrate HIV/AIDS in its humanitarian programmes. Regionally, DFID is working to ensure that HIV prevention is integrated with food distribution, and that AIDS affected households receive food and care. We are also working closely with Governments, UN and non-governmental agencies to ensure that there is better understanding of the impact of HIV/AIDS on hunger and vulnerability. We are exploring how best to support longer-term safety nets for households affected by chronic illness. We also have a substantial programme of support for HIV/ AIDS prevention and care, working with national AIDS councils and others to ensure appropriate multi-sectoral responses to the epidemic.

  UN Aid Target
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development when he expects the Government to meet the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product in their contribution to overseas aid. [129249]
  898W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Government remain firmly committed to the 0.7 per cent. target. Although there is no timetable for reaching the target, the trend in the UK oda/GNI ratio has been upward since 1997, when it was 0.26 per cent. By 2006, the ratio will be 0.4 per cent., the highest since 1981. The rate of progress thereafter will depend on decisions to be taken in the next Spending Review.

  US Overseas Development Assistance
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what representations he has made to the US Administration calling for them to raise overseas development assistance to 0.7 per cent. of GNI. [129448]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The US Government does not accept the 0.7 per cent. target. However, it has subscribed to the Monterrey Consensus on increasing assistance to developing countries and before Monterrey announced increases in ODA worth $5 billion over three years, followed more recently by President Bush's announcement of significant new funds for HIV/AIDS. It is the world's largest donor in terms of volume.

  The UK continues to press all donors to increase their contributions to developing countries in line with the Monterrey Consensus and has recently proposed an International Finance Facility (IFF) which would allow donors, including the US, to mobilise increased resources for international development.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the health and safety environment within which fruit and vegetable packhouse operators and growers operate; and what regulations apply to these sectors to take account of the particular needs of the casual and foreign labour they use. [129777]

  Mr. Browne
  The potential hazards at fruit and vegetable packhouses and growers typically include: transport; machinery; manual handling; noise; slips, trips and falls; and dermatitis. These hazards are common across a range of industries.

  The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 requires all employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all their employees. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers to assess the risks to the health and safety of their employees, and to provide them with information on the risks and measures introduced to protect them.

  The risk assessment should identify those employees that may be particularly at risk because they do not speak, read or understand English. Employers should make special arrangements to safeguard the health and safety of these employees. This may include providing translations, using interpreters or replacing written health and safety notices with clearly understood symbols or diagrams. An increased level of supervision and monitoring of work activities may also be appropriate.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Health and Safety Executive full- time inspectors there are; and how many there were in each of the previous three years [130576]

  Mr. Browne
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on 7 March 2003,Official Report, column 1269W.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what reasons underlie the policy of the Health and Safety Executive(a) to allocate further staff to accident investigations and (b) not to allocate staff to preventative work. [130577]

  Mr. Browne
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has not adopted a policy of allocating further staff to accident investigations, at the expense of staff allocated to preventative work.

  HSE has recently reviewed the balance of resource applied to preventive inspections and investigation of incidents and complaints. HSE has decided to realign its resource to focus more on preventive work; allocating more staff time to preventive inspections, while concentrating the resource applied to investigation on the most serious incidents and complaints. This approach will enable more effective delivery of its mission to ensure that risks to people's health and safety from work related activities are properly controlled.
  900W
  This is in response to the fact that more cases of ill health caused by work are occurring and there has been a levelling off in the incidence of serious and fatal injuries.

  The policy of selecting a proportion of accidents and complaints for investigation, with the most serious being investigated, to ensure lessons are learnt to prevent recurrences has not changed. Accidents and complaints are selected for investigation using criteria set out in its incident selection and complaints procedures.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the Health and Safety Executive's annual budget was in each year since 1997. [130910]

  Mr. Browne
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) on 14 July,Official Report, column 75W.

  Workplace Stress
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance the Government have issued to employers on combating stress in the workplace. [130107]

  Mr. Browne
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published a range of guidance on tackling work- related stress. Further guidance is due to be published over the coming year.

  "Tackling Work-Related Stress—a Manager's Guide to Improving and Maintaining Employee Health and Well-Being", was published on 25 June 2001. It sets out a risk assessment approach to tackling stress in the workplace. It clearly outlines possible hazards and risks, and offers practical advice to managers.

  "Work-Related Stress—a short guide", was published in November 2001. This guide offers similar information but is aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises. HSE has developed new guidance in response to informal consultation that identified the need for further help for organisations in developing solutions to problems with stress. The new guidance, to be launched by HSE in October, is based on case studies of successful solutions employed in a range; of organisations. The case studies have been derived from an extensive range of HSE- commissioned research into good practice in stress prevention. HSE plans to launch the new guidance at a conference on 30 October 2003. It will help employers work with employees to develop solutions in response to issues identified by their risk assessments.

  HSE also publishes information on stress on its website (www.hse.gov.uk/stress). This includes resources to help employers begin to tackle stress and provides access to further sources of help.

  Advertising
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) TV advertising and (b) other costs are involved in the promotion of new arrangements for state pensions, benefits and tax credits to be paid directly into the bank accounts of claimants. [130029]

  Mr. Pond
  A budget of up to £25 million is available for the Direct Payment campaign, spread over a three- year period (2002–03 to 2004–05). The campaign raises
  901W
  awareness of all account options for Direct Payment; including bank, building society and Post Office accounts.

  TV advertising media costs from the start of the campaign to date total £1,799,000.

  Other costs total £4,932,000. This figure breaks down as follows:

  £

  Radio media

  1,239,000

  National press media

  1,111,000

  Regional press media

  1,257,000

  Magazines

  322,000

  Ambient media

  189,000

  Production across all media

  814,000

  Note:

  Figures exclude VAT and apply to the campaign in England, Scotland and Wales only.

  Benefit Applications
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff(a) from his Department and (b) not from his Department are available to undertake home visits to deal with (i) pension credit applications and (ii) all benefit applications. [128744]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Latest data show that there are 1,867 (whole time equivalent) field staff in The Pension Service local service who are available to undertake home visits. They handle applications for all benefits relating to older people, including pension credit. There are varying numbers of staff from organisations with whom we have partnering arrangements who are able to provide information about pension credit and other benefits.

  Benefit Repayments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the amount of money that is not repaid as a result of benefits sent to people who have subsequently died; and what steps he is taking to reform the system. [128704]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 15 September 2003]: As part of our modernisation programme, measures are underway to provide greater focus and specialisation in benefit debt management through the establishment of dedicated benefit debt centres. We are already seeing improvements in increased debt recovery and reduction in outstanding debt.

  At 31 March 2003, the total outstanding overpaid benefit paid for a period following the death of a benefit recipient was estimated to be £7.73 million. We normally
  902W
  seek to recover this type of overpayment, but where recovery is not possible, the overpayment is written off.

  Source:

  Department for Work and Pensions Debt Management System

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will establish individual e-mail addresses for each benefit office so that MI12 forms can be e-mailed to the Benefits Agency. [129874]

  Mr. Pond
  All benefit offices do have e-mail addresses. However, due to the insecure nature of normal e-mail and the need to guarantee the security of personal data we cannot use this method to exchange information relating to individual benefit claims.

  Business Insurance
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the follow up report on Business Insurance. [130929]

  Mr. Browne
  In the Autumn.

  The First Stage Report on Employers' Liability insurance was published by the Department in June. Action in relation to Employers' Liability includes both immediate initiatives and longer-term policy choices. In the timing of our further report, we have to strike a balance between a desire to report immediate action quickly and allowing time to reflect longer-term developments.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will work more closely with trade bodies representing the insurance and construction trades on issues relating to insurance. [130930]

  Mr. Browne
  As part of our work on Employers Liability insurance, Ministers and officials have met a range of insurance and construction industry interests. These have included: the Association of British Insurers, individual insurance companies, the British Insurance Brokers Association, the Federation of Master Builders, the Construction Confederation, the Federation of Small Builders, Scottish Building, and the National Federation of Roofing Contractors. Further meetings are planned.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action his Department plans to take as a result of his assessment of the effect on small and medium-sized enterprises of large increases in insurance premiums. [130931]

  Mr. Browne
  The First Stage Report into Employers' Liability Insurance published by my Department in June identified a number of areas for further consideration and action. These included: renewals and risk-related premiums; long-tail occupational disease; the cost of resolving claims; rehabilitation; and enforcement. Both the Government and stakeholders have continued to work on these issues and the Government will report in the autumn on the progress that is being made and any further steps we intend to take. We continue to work closely with the Small Business Service and representatives of small and medium-sized businesses on these issues.
  903W
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will bring forward the planned publication date of the Department's report on business insurance by the construction industry. [130932]

  Mr. Browne
  Davis Langdon Consultancy undertook a scoping study for the Construction Sector Unit of the Department for Trade and Industry looking at the difficulties construction contractors face in obtaining insurance. This report was published in January 2003.

  The aim of the study was to provide DTI with a clear understanding of the nature and extent of the difficulties facing contractors in obtaining and maintaining adequate insurance. The report aimed to provide perspective on construction specific aspects of the issue and to add value to the work of other studies in this area such as the DWP Employers' liability review.

  We are not currently undertaking any further construction specific reports. However, the Government will be reporting in the autumn on the progress that has been made more generally on Employers Liability insurance (in which there is a keen construction sector interest) and on the further steps it intends to take.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of long-tail insurance on the levels of employers' liability compulsory insurance. [130933]

  Mr. Browne
  The issue of 'long-tail' risks was considered as part of the First Stage Report into Employers' Liability insurance published by the Department in June. The report found that concerns about long-tail risks were clearly keenly felt by insurers and might have an impact on decisions about capital provision but it was not able to translate these concerns into quantifiable impacts on pricing. Recent price increases appear to relate most closely to accident risk.

  We understand that the Association of British Insurers has separately commissioned work that will attempt to quantify the impacts of long-tail risks on the market. They expect to complete this study later this year. The Government will consider this with interest.

  Claimant Data Files
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many departmental files holding data on claimants went missing(a) temporarily and (b) permanently from filestores managed (i) by his Department and (ii) by private sector contractors in each year since 1995. [127187]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department do not hold the information in the manner requested.

  The available data relating to files lost or temporarily missing in the Department for Work and Pensions cannot be used to establish a national picture of the numbers lost or missing in the Department's file-stores.

  There is no consistent counting of files lost in file stores. Some stores, including the central store at Heywood managed by Iron Mountain, keep records of the numbers of files that cannot be traced. In these cases there is no way of distinguishing files actually missing in
  904W
  store, from those that could not be traced because they were never held in the store, or are in transit, or are held elsewhere in the organisation.

  Contracted-out Rebates
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2003,Official Report, column 531W, to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), on contracted-out rebates, to what causes he ascribes the assumed reduction in the number of people receiving contracted-out rebates from 2001–02 to 2051–52. [131058]

  Mr. Pond
  The projection reflects two main assumptions:

  1. A reduction in the membership of contracted-out personal pension schemes, as a result of the introduction of age-related rebates in April 1997; and

  2. Changing membership of contracted-out occupational persion schemes, reflecting among other things, changing patterns of pension provision.

  As the Green Paper and earlier answers made clear these are only illustrative assumptions made for the purpose of long-term financial projections and not firm predictions of future experience. The appropriateness of the assumptions will be reviewed as increased data on the number of individuals contracted-out become available.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department

  Death Registration
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the(a) operation of and (b) level of compliance with the White Form arrangements linked to the registration of death. [129978]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages completes a "White Form" (form BD8 the free death certificate) which is handed to the person registering the death.

  If the BD8 is forwarded to the Department, and payment is still being made, arrangements will be made to cancel payment. The Registrar also notifies the Department automatically.

  There are no statistics available to show level of compliance.

  Deprived Areas
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the support his Department gives to(a) areas suffering from high levels of unemployment and (b) areas suffering from low average wages. [129158]

  Mr. Browne
  The level of employment has reached record levels, up by over 1.5 million since 1997. The underlying trend remains upwards and recent unemployment figures are the best since the 1970s. The improvement in the labour market has been spread right across the country, and since 1997, unemployment rates have fallen fastest in the areas with the highest unemployment.
  905W
  Jobcentre Plus provides everyone of working age with advice and guidance on the full range of support available to help them move into work, including programmes such as our New Deals. In areas of the country with higher levels of worklessness and concentrations of people who are disadvantaged in the labour market, we have introduced specialist programmes such as Action Teams for Jobs and Employment Zones. By the end of July 2003, they had been successful in helping more than 116,000 people into work. The Government have also introduced measures to help make work pay such as the national minimum wage and tax credits.

  From April 2004, we are also introducing a programme of intensive support in neighbourhoods with very high concentrations of worklessness. Local worklessness pilots will operate in 12 of the most deprived neighbourhoods and will run for two years. The pilots will test a new approach to offering intensive support to local residents to help them overcome barriers to employment.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many fraudulent cases have been discovered by the Disability Living Allowance Periodic Enquiry process since June 1999; and if he will make a statement. [127127]

  Mr. Pond
  Periodic Enquiry was not designed as a fraud prevention measure. The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he intends to extend the threshold for disability living allowance to people of pensionable age and over. [130725]

  Maria Eagle
  There are no plans to change the rules governing the upper age limit for claims to disability living allowance.

  Employer Documentation
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the documentation issued by his Department that an employer must complete when he or she takes on his or her first employee, in order to be fully compliant; and if he will make a statement. [128688]

  Mr. Browne
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers on 11 September 2003,Official Report, column 388W.

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what information his Department has collated on the number of small and middle-sized enterprises which have stopped trading in the past 12 months as a result of increases in employers' compulsory liability insurance premiums. [130901]

  Mr. Browne
  While we have received representations about businesses being forced to close as a direct result of increases in their employers' liability insurance 906W
  premiums, conclusive or comprehensive evidence has proved very difficult to obtain. A particular obstacle is the difficulty of disaggregating premium increases as a cause from other factors. For vulnerable companies with low profit margins or debt problems, premium costs might well have been another contributory factor to business failure, but no definitive figures exist.

  Forestry
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received from representatives of(a) the Forestry Commission and (b) private operators in the forestry industry about the level of employers' compulsory liability insurance premiums. [130425]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 17 September 2003]: The Department has received representations about the level of employers' liability compulsory insurance premiums from:
  the Aboricultural Association;
  the United Kingdom Forest Products Association; and
  a private operator in the forestry industry.

  We have discussed the representations with officials in the Forestry Commission.

  The representations will inform the second stage of the review of employers' liability compulsory insurance, which is due to report in autumn.

  Holidays (Benefit Recipients)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to make it easier for those drawing benefit to take a holiday; and what research his Department has undertaken into the number of families that do not take holidays because of poverty. [130575]

  Mr. Pond
  We have taken action to raise the incomes of families, especially for those on the lowest incomes. To help children out of poverty, we have provided more support than ever before to enable parents to work, and to ensure that they are better off in work. As a result of our personal tax and benefit reforms since 1997, from April 2003, families with children are, on average, £1,200 a year better off, while those in the poorest fifth of the population are, on average, £2,500 a year better off in real terms.

  There are different rules and regulations for each of the various benefits, for example, relating to the length of the holiday and whether the holiday is taken within the UK or abroad. Some information is provided in leaflet GL29 "Going abroad and social security benefits", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  The Family and Children Study provides research into this specific area. Further details can be found in Vegeris S. & Perry J., Family and Children 2001: Living Standards and the Children, DWP Research Report 190, available in the House of Commons Library. In addition, my Department recently published Farrell C. & O'Connor W., 2003, Low Income families and household spending, DWP Research Report 192, also available in the House of Commons Library, that includes some analysis of the affordability of holidays for people in receipt of benefit.

  Income Support
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints the Benefits Agency has received about the application process for income support benefits available for home improvement. [129873]

  Mr. Pond
  Representations are dealt with by Jobcentre Plus and The Pensions Service on an individual basis with regard to the circumstance of each case. It is not possible to identify how many are specifically about the application process for income support benefits for home improvement.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what steps he is taking to improve the response time to applications for income support contributions for home improvements. [129875]

  (2) what targets have been set for the processing of MI12 forms in the Benefits Agency; and what penalties there are if the Agency does not meet these. [129876]

  Mr. Pond
  We have not set specific, separate targets for the clearance of MI12 forms. As form MI12 is actioned after the initial claim to benefit has been processed it is treated as a change of circumstance. As part of the Key Management Indicators for Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support clearance targets for changes of circumstances are currently set at four days.

  Iron Mountain
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what criteria led him to award a contract for the management and storage of departmental records to Iron Mountain; and if he will make a statement. [127185]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department for Work and Pensions has not awarded a contract for the management and storage of departmental records to Iron Mountain. DWP has a contract with Hays IMS for the storage and retrieval of some departmental records. Iron Mountain acquired Hays IMS in August 2003 and the DWP contract with Hays IMS is being novated to Iron Mountain accordingly.

  Learning Disability
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many adults with a learning disability were(a) in paid employment in England and (b) known to social services in England in each year since 1997; what percentage of adults with a learning disability known to social services were in paid employment; and if he will make a statement. [127124]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the tables.

  The Department of Health collects limited information from individual councils with Social Services Responsibilities (CSSR) on the number of their clients with learning disabilities who are in paid employment. This is based on those known to the CSSR as part of a care package following a community care assessment. It is not possible to use this data to produce
  908W
  a robust estimate for the whole of England of the percentage of adults with a learning disability known to social services who were in paid employment.

  Number of adults in England with a learning disability who are in employment

  Year

  Number

  1998

  30,000

  1999

  40,000

  2000

  40,000

  2001

  30,000

  2002

  50,000

  2003

  60,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000 and are subject to sampling error.

  2. "People with a learning disability" are all persons in employment and all other men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59 who said that health or disability problems limit the kind of paid work they can do whose main health problem was a severe or specific learning problem.

  3. Paid Employment includes employees and self-employed who were paid for at least one hours work in the survey reference week for people of working age (16-years-old to state pension age). It does not include those on Government employment and training programmes as not all people on these schemes are paid.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, Spring Datasets.

  Estimated number of clients with learning disabilities receiving services following assessment

  2000–01

  2001–02

  All ages

  110,000

  115,000

  18–64

  101,000

  101,000

  65 +

  8,000

  14,000

  Notes:

  1. The data are England estimates grossed up to the nearest thousand to allow for missing data and refer to the reporting year 1 April to 31 March.

  2. Adults in this context are people aged 18 and over.

  3. The "All ages" totals for 2000–2001 include the number of clients whose age was not known.

  4. Figures may not add up because of rounding.

  Source:

  Department of Health, Referrals, Assessments and Packages of Care (RAP) returns for 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  Low Incomes
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will introduce a system of short- term loans for those on low incomes when they change jobs; [129856]

  (2) what research his Department has conducted on the disincentives caused to those on low incomes when they change jobs; [129857]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 15 July 2003, Official Report, column 245W, on employment assistance, whether similar incentives are available for those in low paying jobs seeking a move to a similar position. [131175]

  Mr. Browne
  This Department has not conducted research into disincentives caused to low income households when people change jobs. We are, however, committed to making work pay for all those who are able to work, and to supporting households, including low-income households, in sustaining employment.
  909W
  Most people moving from one job to another will be able to manage until they receive payment from their new job, as wages are paid in arrears. For those in receipt of Working Tax Credit, continuity of payment will be maintained when people move from one job to another, as long as the gap between jobs is no more than seven days. The new Working Tax Credit has been extended to people aged 25 and over without children. If people receive the Child Tax Credit, this continues to be paid direct to the main carer throughout any changes in employment. People in low paid employment may also be entitled to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  People who are unable to manage whilst waiting for payment of wages, leading to a serious risk to their or their family's health or safety, may be able to get an interest free Crisis Loan. Repayment of a Crisis Loan does not start until the period of crisis is over and the

  New Deal for Young People

  Spend (£ million)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Subsidies to employers

  —

  19

  27

  16

  14

  14

  Payments to external providers

  112

  98

  174

  214

  159

  166

  Payments to participants

  —

  45

  81

  63

  46

  69

  Departmental administrative costs

  31

  98

  88

  119

  89

  90

  New Deal 25 Plus

  Spend (£ million)

  1997–95

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Subsidies to employers

  0

  5

  42

  14

  12

  13

  Payments to external providers

  0

  12

  28

  24

  99

  123

  Payments to participants

  0

  0

  2

  5

  28

  45

  Departmental administrative costs

  0

  17

  26

  18

  73

  73

  New Deal 50 Plus

  Spend (£ million)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Subsidies to employers

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Payments to external providers

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  Payments to participants

  0

  0

  1

  43

  80

  99

  Departmental administrative costs

  0

  0

  2

  11

  5

  5

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  Spend (£ million)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Subsidies to employers

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Payments to external providers

  0

  0

  2

  3

  1

  4

  Payments to participants

  0

  1

  9

  12

  8

  15

  Departmental administrative costs

  0

  17

  27

  29

  37

  61

  New Deal for Disabled People

  Spend (£ million)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Subsidies to employers

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Payments to external providers

  0

  0

  15

  6

  1

  14

  Payments to participants

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Departmental administrative costs

  0

  1

  7

  7

  6

  12

  910W
  rate of repayment takes account of a person's income and other commitments to avoid hardship.

  New Deal
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the New Deal for Young People has cost in each year, broken down into expenditure on(a) subsidies to employers, (b) payments to external providers, (c) payments to participants (d) employment service costs and (e) other economic categories. [114555]

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of New Deal expenditure was spent on(a) subsidies to employers, (b) payments to external providers, (c) payments to participants, (d) Jobcentre Plus costs and (e) other costs, broken down by programme, in each year since the programme began; and if he will make a statement. [122468]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is in the tables.
  911W

  New Deal for Partners

  Spend (£ million)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–4)1

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Subsidies to employers

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Payments to external providers

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Payments to participants

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Departmental administrative costs

  0

  1

  5

  10

  6

  6

  1 Information is not available on the breakdown of spend across these categories.

  Notes:

  1. Due to rounding differences, and changes in allocation, figures provided may not sum to previous figures given.

  2. No money was allocated to other economic categories.

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus.

  Operation Gangmaster
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what costs have been incurred since the inception of(a) Operation Gangmaster and (b) the Gangmaster Working Group; what funds remain unallocated in each case; and if he will make a statement. [128785]

  Mr. Pond
  It is not possible to identify separately how much is spent on Operation Gangmaster activity.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment has been undertaken of Operation Gangmaster; and what plans there are to make an assessment. [128787]

  Mr. Pond
  A hearing on gangmasters by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee took place before the summer recess. The report was published on 18 September 2003. Operation Gangmaster will be reviewed in the light of the Committee's recommendations.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2003,Official Report, column 554W, on Operation Gangmaster, if he will list the members of the west Midlands forum under the Operation Gangmaster initiative. [129783]

  Mr. Pond
  When Operation Gangmaster began in 1998, forums were set up at Walsall and Cambridge to cover the west and east Midlands respectively. In

  £

  Information

  Average amount of Basic Pension

  73.61

  Forecasted Basic Pension at State Pension Age

  Average amount of payable Additional Pension

  6.49

  This figure is based on contributions paid and is the actual amount to be paid, this is unlikely to change unless the self-employed recipient reverts to employed status.

  Average amount of Graduated Retirement

  1.20

  —

  Benefit

  Average amount per forecast letter

  81.29

  1—

  1 The discrepancy of 1 p is due to rounding.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many questions directed to him remain unanswered. [130765]

  Maria Eagle
  As at the rising of the House for the conference recess, 24 questions for answer today or earlier have not yet been answered.
  912W
  September 2002 these forums were amalgamated into one forum, which sits at Peterborough.

  The organisations represented at the forum are listed.

  Department for Work and Pensions (Chair and Secretariat)

  Inland Revenue

  United Kingdom Immigration Service

  National Asylum Support Service

  H.M Customs and Excise

  Uniform and plain clothes police officers

  Department for Environment, Rural Affairs and Agriculture

  Department for Trade and Industry

  Health and Safety Executive

  Pension Forecasts
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many retirement pension forecasts have been distributed to the self-employed, and at what cost; and what is the average entitlement that is forecast. [128748]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The total number of state pension forecasts issued to the self-employed to date (5 September 2003) is 397, 409.

  The cost of the exercise to date is £2.72 million; this includes both staff and non-staff costs.

  The figures for the average cash amount for each component that makes up the forecast for the self- employed are as follows:

  Pension Investment
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made of the effects of the propensity for those aged 25 to 34 to view property rather than other savings products as a vehicle for pension investments; [131126]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the likely effects of increased use of equity release as a savings vehicle for retirement. [131125]
  913W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Individuals of all ages have different preferences and it is right that people are free to choose to save for retirement in a variety of different ways. However, the Government believes that the best way to provide a secure income in retirement—in excess of that provided by the state—is through saving in a private pension during an individual's working life. In general, buying a house and putting money into a pension should not be seen as substitutes for each other. By saving in a pension individuals benefit from risk pooling and diversification, favourable tax treatment and over the longer term can expect strong returns to private pension investment. Furthermore, at the point of retirement, housing wealth is generally much more illiquid than any accrued private pension benefits and the market for equity release products is relatively small and trading down incurs high transaction costs.

  People will want to take account of the relative risks of investing in different savings vehicles, particularly if these savings are for the long term. Above all, the Government are committed to seeking to provide individuals with information so that they can make informed choices about how and when to save to achieve the level of income in retirement that they expect.

  Pensioner Benefits
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Monmouthshire benefited from(a) the winter fuel allowance, (b) the £100 allowance for the over 80s and (c) free TV licences in the last year for which figures are available. [130368]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of people in Monmouthshire who received a winter fuel payment for winter 2002–03 was 19,625. Of that figure 3,970 were over age 80 and would be entitled to an additional amount of winter fuel payment from the winter of 2003–04. The extra amount will depend on the composition of the household, but generally most households will receive an extra £100.

  The information in respect of people in receipt of free TV licence in Monmouthshire is not available. However, the number of people in Monmouthshire aged 75 or over receiving a social security benefit as at 30 November 2002 was 7,700. These people would be eligible to receive a free TV licence.

  Notes:

  1. Figures taken from the Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service winter fuels payment 2002–03 exercise and the Pensions Strategy Computer System: 30 September 2002.

  2. 100 sample figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  3. Figures based on 5 per cent. data taken from the Client Group Analysis of the population over state pension age as at 30 November 2002, and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation. These figures are expressed in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred

  4. Social security benefits are attendance allowance, disability living allowance, severe disablement allowance, incapacity benefit, minimum income guarantee and state pension.

  5. As only one TV licence is required per household, the number of free TV licences issued may be lower than the number of people entitled to one. Some households may contain more than one person aged 75 and over and not all households with a person aged 75 and over will have a television.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre 100 per cent. sample and 5 per cent. sample.

  Pensions
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will assess the benefits to consumer financial education of including figures showing average healthy life expectancy in government pension statements. [129855]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Previous customer research conducted on the information contained in state pension forecasts has not highlighted the need to include information on average healthy life expectancy.

  The inclusion of such information will be assessed in future customer research conducted into pensions education material.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many retirement pensions in payment continue after the death of the beneficiary; what the cost to public funds was in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of these payments was recovered. [129979]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In 2002–03, 48,946 cases were identified with a value of £9.848 million for State Pension paid after death. £1.606 million of this was recovered. The balance is in the process of recovery. In addition, a further £5.928 million was recovered in 2002–03 against debts identified in previous years.

  Source:

  Central Debt Management System

  Sign Language
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 17 July 2003,Official Report, column 527W (1) what progress the British Sign Language working group has made towards distributing the money his Department has allocated to the recognition of British Sign Language; and if he will make a statement on how this programme of initiatives will increase access to services and the number of BSL interpreters; [130769]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's continued support for the implementation of the recognition of British Sign Language further to the money allocated on 18 March. [130723]

  Maria Eagle
  The British Sign Language working group, which is an advisory group, has met twice to consider priorities for allocating the additional £1 million we have made available, and to consider draft specifications for initiatives which would best support the 18 March statement. We have received the working group's recommendations which involve action to promote access for BSL users through awareness raising, and action which will contribute to establishing a framework to support BSL tutors. Over time this will result in an increase in the number of BSL interpreters. Officials will shortly start a formal tendering exercise.

  The working group will also be doing some longer- term strategic thinking and we will receive their advice in due course on policies and initiatives which would, over time, further increase access for deaf people who use BSL.

  Social Security Funding
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much social security funding was distributed to(a) local authority welfare rights units, (b) Citizens Advice Bureaux and (c) other voluntary or private agencies in each local authority in England in each of the last 10 years. [130415]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Direct funding of outside bodies by the Department for Work and Pensions is confined to a small number of grants, the details of which can be obtained from the Department's annual Accounts, copies of which are available in the Library. The grants enable the voluntary sector to work with the Department in: helping people with disabilities to live more independently in the community; providing mobility related assistance; and free help and advice to members of the public regarding their company, stakeholder or personal pension scheme.

  However, the voluntary sector is a key partner of the Department's and a number of organisations receive funding under contract to the Department for the delivery of specific services. For example, assisting in the Department's efforts to help people back into work, particularly those facing the greatest disadvantages, by delivery of a range of employment and training programmes, including elements of the New Deal.

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate the Department has made of the amount of unclaimed benefits, broken down by type of benefit, in each of the last 10 years. [130050]

  Mr. Pond
  Estimates of the amount of additional income-related benefits payable if everyone entitled took-up their entitlement for the full period, broken down by benefit, can be found in the statistical report "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up", which is published annually by the Department. Copies of the publications are available in the Library.

  Winter Heating Allowance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the total value of the winter heating allowance for each year from 1998–99 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [130142]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information in respect of winter fuel payments, which were introduced in 1997, is in the table.

  £ million

  Winter fuel payments

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  191

  1998–99

  194

  1999–2000

  759

  2000–01

  1,749

  2001–02

  1,692

  Estimated expenditure

  2002–03

  1,712

  Forecast expenditure '

  2003–04 1

  1,891

  2004–05 f

  1,911

  2005–06

  1,933

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to publish the action plan to support small and medium- sized abattoirs and slaughterhouses. [128331]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The steps we are taking to help ensure there is a network of abattoirs and meat cutting plants complement our wider "Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food'' which was published on 12 December 2002. Currently, in co-operation with the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Meat Hygiene Service, we are compiling data on the slaughtering and meat supply industry to help us develop a strategic approach. Compilation and analysis is expected to be complete by mid October and data suitable for the public domain will be published thereafter.

  Bluetongue Disease
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the risk of an outbreak of bluetongue disease in the United Kingdom; and what discussions she has had with her colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to prevent the spread of this disease to Northern Ireland. [130404]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My officials have consulted experts at the Institute of Animal Health on the risk of an outbreak of Bluetongue in the UK. The Institute of Animal Health is both the National and European Union reference laboratory for the disease. At present the risk is considered to be very low.

  Bluetongue is active in countries around the Meditterranean basin. It is transmitted by midges of Culicoides species. However, the disease has recently spread a little further north and the possible causes of this move are being investigated. The main vector of disease (Culicoides imicola) has not been found in the UK.

  A Bluetongue Control Strategy for the United Kingdom is already in place and is available on the Defra website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ diseases/notifiable/disease/bluetongue_control_strategy. PDF Defra staff have worked closely with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland (DARDNI) on the preparation of contingency plans as required under Directive 2000/75/ EC. These Contingency Plans can be obtained from:

  Defra—

  via the Defra website—

  http.V/www.defra.gov.uk/animaih/diseases/notifiable/ disease/bluecontin.PDF and a copyhas been placed in the main Defra library.

  DARDNI—

  from the Animal Disease Control Branch, Dundonald House, Belfast.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in reforming the Common Agricultural Policy during the last six months. [129495]
  917W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 26 June EU Agriculture Ministers agreed an historic reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which will provide a more sustainable basis for European agriculture, as well as reducing some of the damaging impacts of the CAP on developing countries.

  The agreement breaks the link between farm subsidies and production in order to reconnect farmers to their markets, reduce damaging environmental impacts and reduce bureaucracy, this is at the heart of our approach to sustainable food and farming. Subsidies will also be dependent on farmers meeting standards in areas like environmental protection, and animal health and welfare. For the first time there will be an EU wide switch of money from production subsidies to environmental and rural development objectives, and there is a new financial discipline which will trigger action to reduce subsidies if CAP expenditure is in danger of exceeding the agreed budget ceilings.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the latest estimate is of the cost to the average family of the Common Agricultural Policy through higher consumer prices and levels of taxation. [129439]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]: The consumer cost of the CAP can be estimated by examining the difference between UK and world prices for agricultural food products. The notional taxpayer contribution to CAP expenditure can also be estimated though, in practice, UK taxpayers contribute to the whole EU budget rather than to specific components. Our latest provisional estimates for 2002 show a cost of the CAP to a notional family of four from higher consumer prices and levels of taxation of approximately £8 to £9 a week.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many claimants received a direct grant or subsidy under the Common Agricultural Policy in the latest year for which information is available; and of the payments made, how many were(a) under £1,000, (b) between £1,000 and £2,500, (c) between £2,500 and £5,000, (d) between £5,000 and £10,000, (e) between £10,000 and £100,000, (f) between £100,000 and £500,000, (g) between £500,000 and £1 million and (h) in excess of £1 million. [129441]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]: The number of claimants who received direct grants or subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy in England was 93,542 in the 12 month period to 31 August 2003. This is broken down into the requested payment bands in the following table. We are unable to identify the total payments received by any individual or business making applications using more than one name. The payment of direct grants and subsidies in that period in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was the responsibility of the devolved authorities in Scotland and Wales and the Northern Ireland Administration.

  Direct subsidy payments in the 12 month period to 31 August 2003

  Band

  Total value of payments in period

  Number of claimants

  (a)

  Under £1,000

  22,740

  (b)

  Between £1,000 and £2,500

  12,578

  (c)

  Between £2,500 and £5,000

  11,226

  918W

  Direct subsidy payments in the 12 month period to 31 August 2003

  Band

  Total value of payments in period

  Number oj claimants

  (d)

  Between £5,000 and £10,000

  12,048

  (e)

  Between £10,000 and £100,000

  32,884

  (f)

  Between £100,000 and £500,000

  2,027

  (g)

  Between £500,000 and £1,000,000

  28

  (h)

  In excess of £1,000,000

  11

  Total number of claimants

  93,542

  Commercial Whaling
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with representatives of the Icelandic Government to try to prevent them from resuming commercial whaling. [130567]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  When Iceland rejoined the IWC in October 2002, its application for renewed membership contained a declaration in which Iceland undertook (under certain conditions) not to resume commercial whaling until 2006 at the earliest.

  When the Icelandic Ambassador to London called on me on 3 September, I stressed that the Government (and the UK public) was highly critical of Iceland's unjustified and unnecessary plan to kill 38 minke whales this year, (and possibly larger numbers of minke, sei and fin whales next year).

  On 10 September the British Ambassador to Reykjavik delivered a demarche on behalf of the Governments of the UK and 22 other countries, urging the Icelandic Government to rescind its decision to start so-called "scientific" whaling.

  Construction Industry (Magnesium Carbonate)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the letter from the former Minister of State for Environment of 16 September 2002 (171977/JW), what action has been taken since April 2003 on the use of magnesium carbonate in the construction industry. [128414]

  Mr. Morley
  BRE (formerly known as the Building Research Establishment) submitted a successful bid in the 2002 DTI Partners in Innovation competition round to carry out an independent assessment of the potential benefits, including those of carbon sequestration and low embodied energy, reported for novel cements such as magnesium carbonate. The research work is due to commence shortly with a completion date of March 2006. The outcome will be a report assessing the technical and environmental performance of novel cements, their cost competitiveness compared to conventional cements, and, if appropriate, their potential use in the UK construction industry.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of enlargement of the European Union and the rights of nationals of the applicant countries to work in other member states on English farming and horticulture. [129772]
  919W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  After accession on 1 May 2004 nationals from the new member states and members of their families will have the right to work in the United Kingdom on the same basis as those from existing member states. While this will significantly increase the potential pool of workers able to work in English farming and horticulture, a number of independent studies looking at the scale of migration flows into the EU after enlargement suggest that there are likely to be only relatively small inflows into the UK. Predictions of migration flows are difficult to make, even at national level, so the impact on a particular sector such as farming and horticulture is even more uncertain.

  Farm Incomes
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average income of individual farms and farm businesses was for those in the top and the bottom deciles in the past 12 months; and what the average percentage of total income subsidies represented in both groups. [129867]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The average net farm income, output and subsidies received by farms in the top and bottom deciles in England in 2001–02 is given in the table:

  £ per farm

  Bottom decile

  Top decile

  Net farm income

  -37,600

  98,500

  Total farm output

  212,800

  476,500

  Total subsidies

  37,300

  42,500

  Subsidies as a percentage of output

  18

  9

  Note:

  These data refer to farms not subject to compulsory cull of livestock during the Foot and Mouth Disease crisis in 2001.

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey.

  The table provides data only for farms with an economic size of at least eight European Size Units (ESUs), the minimum considered necessary to occupy a full time farmer. Although nearly half the farms in England fall below this size threshold, they account for only 2 per cent. of agricultural output.

  Net farm income is defined as the return to the principal farmer and spouse for their labour and on the tenant-type capital of the business.

  Farming Industry
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effect on the various sectors of the UK farming industry of (i) the legislative burden and (ii) the exchange rate of continental European competitors; and if she will make a statement. [130206]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No specific research has been commissioned or evaluated by the Department which compares the total level of legislative burden on the farming industry in the UK with the rest of the European Union. However, as set out in the "Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food" the Government are committed to better regulation. This means legislating only where necessary, doing so in a light 920W
  touch way and deregulating and simplifying existing legislation wherever possible. While some regulation is unavoidable if the Government are to safeguard public and animal health, environmental matters or public funds, modern regulations must not only be effective and efficient, but must also deliver improvements in ways which minimise the burden of compliance on the industry.

  The euro-sterling exchange rate is an important determiner of UK farm incomes. A provisional assessment of the impact of the recent recovery in the euro and medium term prospects for UK farm incomes if this is sustained is published on the Defra website (http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/repfi.pdf).

  Fisheries
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in dealing with diseases among fish living in restricted cage accommodation. [128820]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 10 September 2003]: Most farming of fin fish in cages takes place in the Scottish marine environment. The health status of farmed fish in the UK including those held in caged systems is closely monitored by the Fish Health Inspectorates reporting to the different administrations in the UK to ensure full compliance with the EU fish health regime as laid down in Council Directives 91/67/ EEC and 93/53/EEC and implementing national legislation, The UK has a high fish health status and is currently free from the most serious fish diseases, Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA), Viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia (VMS) and Infectious Haematopoietic Necrosis (IHN), Stringent control programmes operate to maintain freedom from these diseases and to control other serious diseases which may be present in some farmed fish populations such as Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis (IPN) and Bacterial Kidney Disease (BKD).

  In March this year the Scottish Executive published "A Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture" which outlines a range of issues which are being addressed to help protect the health and welfare of fish farmed in caged and other systems including better management techniques to help reduce the incidence of sea lice infestation.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will grant a full aid package for the South West Fishing Fleet and a decommissioning programme following the proposal by the European Commission for a recovery programme for the northern hake stock including associated stocks of megrim and anglerfish; and if she will make a statement. [129414]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Grant aid for the fishing industry in south-west England is available under the EU FIFG structural fund programme. The current decommissioning scheme for fishing vessels in England is targeted to the sectors of the fleet which are subject to limits on their time at sea under the interim EU requirements for effort control to conserve cod.
  921W
  The Government will consider whether there is a need for additional funds to be made available to the south west fleet in the light of the outcome of EU negotiations on the Commission's proposal for a recovery plan for Northern hake.

  Food Consumption
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the percentage of food consumed in the United Kingdom that was sourced in the United Kingdom in the last five years, broken down by sector. [128247]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The following table shows the level of UK self-sufficiency in specified commodities for each of the last five years (1998–2002).

  Production as percentage of total new supply for use in UK

  Commodity

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total Cereals

  115

  109

  113

  97

  99

  Oilseed rape

  97

  97

  83

  66

  86

  Sugar

  72

  71

  71

  67

  63

  Potatoes

  88

  90

  89

  84

  87

  Vegetables

  71

  72

  71

  66

  66

  Fruit

  9

  12

  10

  10

  9

  Beef and veal (home fed)

  83

  80

  79

  72

  72

  Mutton and lamb (home fed)

  101

  104

  100

  78

  84

  Pork (Home fed)

  112

  100

  92

  73

  76

  Poultrymeat

  93

  90

  89

  91

  91

  Processed Liquid Milk1

  99

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Butter

  78

  71

  64

  63

  69

  Cheese

  64

  63

  63

  66

  68

  Cream

  151

  146

  137

  134

  148

  Hen eggs

  97

  93

  91

  88

  87

  1 Processed liquid milk is the product following separation and treatment suitable for the drinking milk market.

  Note:

  2002 data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Source:

  Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2002—Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities and Food) Accounts and Trade, ESD, DEFRA.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's progress in preventing illegal meat from entering the United Kingdom. [129494]

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  UK imports1

  Unprocessed liquid milk2

  186

  114

  Processed liquid milk3

  37

  67

  54

  68

  89

  65

  Butter

  103

  129

  110

  121

  114

  114

  Cheese

  192

  232

  189

  212

  210

  239

  Cream

  3

  3

  2

  3

  4

  6

  Condensed milk

  10

  13

  10

  13

  12

  10

  Milk powder (full cream)

  3

  5

  6

  7

  8

  10

  Skimmed milk powder

  8

  26

  13

  12

  14

  13

  922W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Progress against the Government's Action Plan on illegal imports in the financial year 2002–03 is reported in the Annual Review of Controls on Imports of Animal Products. Copies have been placed in the House Libraries.

  The 2003–04 Action Plan is appended to the Review, and we are working with HM Customs and other responsible parties to implement it. Progress will be reported in the next Annual Review to be published after the end of this financial year.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many spot checks have been carried out on illegal meat imports at each designated port of entry into the UK since December 2002. [129498]

  John Healey
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 8 September 2003,Official Report, column 99W. Customs carry out their anti-smuggling controls on the basis of risk assessment and intelligence.

  Lantra
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list research projects that Lantra has undertaken over the last two years. [130590]

  Alun Michael
  I understand that Lantra carries out projects on behalf of a range of clients, and so comprehensive information is not available within the Department. As an example of work commissioned by my Department, Lantra recently completed a study of the training and development needs of rural businesses to inform Defra's Learning Skills and Knowledge Review.

  Milk
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much milk was produced surplus to requirements by UK farmers; and how much milk was imported in each of the last 10 years. [128259]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is difficult to determine how much milk is produced that is "surplus to requirements". This will depend on whether one considers the requirements of UK processors and food manufacturers, both for products intended for domestic consumption or export, or the requirements of UK consumers. Nevertheless, I hope the data tabulated as follows on UK imports, exports, production, domestic use and self-sufficiency for the major milk products since 1991 gives an indication of the position.
  923W

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  UK exports1

  Unprocessed liquid milk2

  72

  70

  92

  133

  191

  178

  Processed liquid milk3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  5

  5

  Butter

  39

  51

  52

  53

  53

  51

  Cheese

  51

  48

  57

  59

  55

  59

  Cream

  38

  41

  69

  84

  79

  96

  Condensed milk

  47

  57

  50

  52

  65

  58

  Milk powder (full cream)

  67

  84

  57

  65

  77

  75

  Skimmed milk powder

  71

  45

  55

  61

  56

  20

  UK production1

  Unprocessed liquid milk2

  14,778

  14,679

  14,742

  14,981

  14,683

  14,680

  Processed liquid milk3

  6,903

  6,980

  7,008

  6,966

  7,128

  7,041

  Butter

  132

  127

  141

  148

  133

  130

  Cheese

  309

  332

  338

  341

  362

  377

  Cream

  254

  240

  255

  274

  281

  281

  Condensed milk

  198

  206

  191

  196

  181

  206

  Milk powder (full cream)

  79

  84

  71

  83

  90

  83

  Skimmed milk powder

  143

  106

  132

  142

  117

  108

  UK domestic use (disappearances)1

  Unprocessed liquid milk2

  14,706

  14,610

  14,650

  14,848

  14,678

  14,616

  Processed liquid milk3

  6,937

  7,044

  7,059

  7,030

  7,212

  7,101

  Butter

  206

  207

  228

  231

  201

  189

  Cheese

  458

  512

  466

  500

  522

  557

  Cream

  22D

  i,202

  187

  194

  207

  191

  Condensed milk

  164

  ,.'., 160

  151

  155

  130

  160

  Milk powder (full cream)

  14

  7

  19

  26

  20

  19

  Skimmed milk powder

  86

  91

  88

  89

  82

  75

  UK self sufficiency4

  Unprocessed liquid milk2

  100

  100

  101

  101

  100

  100

  Processed liquid milk3

  100

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  Butter

  67

  62

  71

  69

  69

  68

  Cheese

  69

  64

  72

  69

  70

  68

  Cream

  116

  119

  136

  142

  136

  148

  Condensed milk

  123

  128

  127

  125

  141

  130

  Milk powder (full cream)5

  Skimmed milk powder6

  179

  121

  148

  152

  157

  107

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002 (provisional)

  UK imports1

  Unprocessed liquid milk2

  132

  133

  115

  108

  65

  74

  Processed liquid milk3

  63

  57

  38

  36

  31

  26

  Butter

  111

  105

  114

  118

  115

  101

  Cheese

  240

  257

  277

  255

  273

  267

  Cream

  11

  11

  8

  10

  18

  12

  Condensed milk

  13

  13

  14

  14

  14

  11

  Milk powder (full cream)

  10

  10

  10

  11

  8

  10

  Skimmed milk powder

  13

  11

  14

  13

  23

  14

  UK exports1

  Unprocessed liquid milk2

  299

  384

  479

  458

  426

  433

  Processed liquid milk3

  6

  5

  7

  7

  3

  4

  Butter

  74

  65

  56

  45

  41

  37

  Cheese

  53

  55

  62

  58

  68

  77

  Cream

  92

  101

  96

  82

  84

  95

  Condensed milk

  63

  64

  51

  31

  22

  30

  Milk powder (full cream)

  106

  106

  92

  102

  86

  113

  Skimmed milk powder

  45

  34

  60

  112

  30

  23

  UKproduction1

  Unprocessed liquid milk2

  14,848

  14,640

  15,020

  14,496

  14,715

  14,906

  Processed liquid milk3

  6,949

  6,939

  7,056

  6,969

  6,961

  6,956

  Butter

  139

  137

  141

  132

  126

  141

  Cheese

  377

  366

  368

  340

  395

  396

  Cream

  268

  266

  275

  270

  263

  257

  Condensed milk

  214

  192

  177

  162

  161

  149

  Milk powder (full cream)

  96

  97

  102

  105

  83

  105

  Skimmed milk powder

  109

  107

  102

  83

  71

  71

  924W 925W

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002 (provisional)

  UK domestic use (disappearances)1

  Unprocessed liquid milk2

  14,681

  14,388

  14,656

  14,146

  14,335

  14,547

  Processed liquid milk3

  7,006

  6,991

  7,087

  6,998

  6,989

  6,978

  Butter

  182

  172

  187

  209

  200

  196

  Cheese

  561

  577

  583

  536

  596

  584

  Cream

  187

  176

  188

  198

  197

  174

  Condensed milk

  166

  141

  138

  146

  150

  131

  Milk powder (full cream)

  —

  1

  20

  15

  2

  3

  Skimmed milk powder

  59

  57

  68

  50

  56

  45

  UK self sufficiency4

  Unprocessed liquid milk2

  101

  102

  102

  102

  103

  102

  Processed liquid milk3

  99

  99

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Butter

  79

  78

  71

  64

  63

  64

  Cheese

  67

  64

  63

  63

  66

  65

  Cream

  144

  151

  146

  137

  134

  140

  Condensed milk

  130

  136

  127

  111

  105

  114

  Milk powder (full cream)5

  Skimmed milk powder6

  141

  127

  180

  -527

  111

  115

  1 Thousand tonnes except figures for liquid milk, which are expressed in million litres.

  2 Unprocessed liquid milk is milk in its natural state prior to any form of separation or processing and may be destined for either the drinking or manufacture market.

  3 Processed liquid milk is the product following separation and treatment suitable for the drinking milk market.

  4 Production as percentage of total new supply.

  5 As the UK only makes negligible use of full cream milk powders the self sufficiency calculation is meaningless.

  6 Self sufficiency rate for 2000 is not representative of other years because of the sale of intervention stocks of skimmed milk powder.

  Source:

  Agriculture in the United Kingdom (2002).

  Organic Farmers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what grants are available to organic farmers from her Department. [130102]

  Year 1

  Year 2

  Year 3

  Year 4

  Year 5

  Total

  Conversion option

  Land eligible for Arable Area Payment Scheme and land in permanent crops (except top fruit orchards)

  225

  135

  30

  30

  30

  450

  Top Fruit orchards (cherries, pears, plums and apples—other than cider apples)

  600

  600

  600

  30

  30

  1,860

  Other improved land

  175

  105

  23

  23

  23

  349

  Unimproved grassland, rough grazing and "managed land"

  25

  10

  5

  5

  5

  50

  Maintenance option

  Land eligible for Arable Area Payment Scheme and land in permanent crops (except top fruit orchards)

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  150

  Top Fruit orchards (cherries, pears, plums and apples—other than cider apples)

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  150

  Other improved land

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  115

  Unimproved grassland, rough grazing and "managed land"

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  25

  The Department also provides free advice to prospective organic farmers through the Organic Information Conversion Service (OCIS) and the Department's R&D programme includes a large component dealing with research on organic farming.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many Questions directed to her remain unanswered. [130757]
  926W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Support for farmers converting to organic farming, as well as on-going post-conversion aid to encourage the continued management of the land in an environmentally beneficial way, is available under the Organic Farming Scheme (OFS), which is part of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP). The rates of aid under the OFS are as follows:

  Alun Michael
  I and my ministerial colleagues attach great importance to answering hon. Members' questions promptly. I am afraid that it is not always possible to do so, if questions, for example, ask for historical or detailed information.

  At 16 September, hon. Members had tabled 4,059 parliamentary questions to my Department; 313 questions were either transferred to another Department or withdrawn by Members.

  Of the remaining 3,746 questions, 57 are in the process of being drafted.

  Phytophthora Ramorum
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many enforcement notices have been issued to destroy trees or shrubs infected by phytophthora ramorum. [130537]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As at 16 September 2003, Enforcement notices have been issued for the destruction of trees and shrubs in respect of 305 confirmed outbreaks of phytophthora ramorum in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many inspectors are employed to prevent the import of(a) trees and (b) shrubs infected with phytophthora ramorum. [130609]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  76 inspectors from Defra's Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate continue to monitor trees and shrubs imported from other member states or from third countries to ensure they meet import requirements and are not carrying the disease, This work forms part of their other duties including the survey work for this disease and a wide range of activities related to other plant pests and diseases. Similar action is being taken by the devolved Authorities and the Forestry Commission.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of infection by phytophthora ramorum have been identified in national parks. [130615]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Seven cases of infection by phytophthora ramorum have been identified at garden centres and nurseries located within the national parks.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of infection by phytophthora ramorum have been identified in trees or shrubs on Forestry Commission land. [130618]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No cases of infection by phytophthora ramorum have been identified in trees and shrubs on Forestry Commission land.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many laboratory tests have been carried out in the last three months on plant material suspected of being infected with the phytophthora ramorum fungus; and what proportion has proved positive. [130643]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  During June, July and August 2003, 2,192 individual laboratory tests have been carried out on samples of plant material suspected of being infected with phytophthora ramorum fungus in the United Kingdom. 11.8 per cent. of these samples were confirmed as being infected with this pathogen.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will place in the Library a list of the(a) parks, (b) gardens
  928W
  and (c) other premises in England in respect of which enforcement notices have been issued to destroy trees or shrubs infected with phytophthora ramorum; [130644]

  (2) if she will take steps to ensure that the public is aware of the identity of the premises of (a) wholesalers and (b) retailers of plants and shrubs where infections of phytophthora ramorum have been discovered. [130645]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 16 September 2003]: The Government believe the public should have as much information as possible about this disease and is happy to meet all reasonable requests for information. However, the information obtained specifically in relation to individual premises, has been gathered in pursuance of the Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate's statutory powers and on the basis of this information, where necessary, enforcement notices are issued to ensure compliance. In the absence of a statutory obligation to publish details identifying individual premises, to publish such details without consent could seriously jeopardise our ability to work with business in relation to the reporting and control of phytophthora ramorum.

  Sea Defences (Tendring)
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total investment in sea defences along the coast of the Tendring Peninsula was(a) from 1992 to 1997 and (b) since 1997. [129560]

  Mr. Morley
  Operational responsibility for coastal defences (against erosion and flooding from the sea) along the Tendring Peninsula rests with Tendring District Council and the Environment Agency. Spending by those bodies on capital improvements and maintenance of coastal defences was(a) 9.6 million from 1992–93 to 1996–97 and (b) 15.1 million from 1997–98 to 2002–03. Much of the expenditure has been supported by Central Government funding through Defra grants on capital works and Revenue Support Grant from ODPM.

  Softwood
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what volume of softwood was imported into the United Kingdom originating from(a) the EU, (b) Norway, (c) the Baltic countries and (d) Russia in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001 and (iv) 2002. [129659]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 September 2003]: The figures for softwood imports are presented in the following tables.

  Thousand m3 underbark

  7999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Roundwood

  EU

  73

  85

  165

  273

  Norway

  4

  4

  2

  0

  Baltic countries1

  50

  29

  27

  38

  Russia

  2

  25

  54

  52

  929W

  Thousand m3

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Sawn wood

  EU

  3,566

  3,804

  3,937

  4,082

  Norway

  115

  106

  104

  87

  Baltic countries1

  1,989

  2,347

  2,298

  2,441

  Russia

  404

  499

  583

  701

  1 Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what volume of softwoods was imported in(a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 2002. [129660]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 September 2003]: The figures for softwood imports, are presented in the following table.

  Roundwood (Thousand m3 underbark)

  Sawn Wood (Thousand m3)

  1999

  165

  6,642

  2000

  190

  7,338

  2001

  256

  7,221

  2002

  366

  7,585

  Family

  Species

  Caprifoliaceae

  Viburnum davidii

  Viburnum farreri (syn. Viburnum fragrans)

  Viburnum lantana

  Viburnum opulus

  Viburnum plicatum

  Viburnum tinus

  Viburnum x bodnantense (Viburnum farrerii x Viburnum grandiflorum)

  Viburnum x burkwoodii (Viburnum carlesii x Viburnum utile)

  Viburnum x carlcephalum x Viburnum, utile

  Viburnum x pragnense (Viburnum rhytidophyllum x Viburnum utile)

  Ericaceae

  Kalmia latifolia

  Leucothoe fontanesiana

  Pieris formosa var. forrestii

  Pieris formosa var. forrestii x Pieris japonica

  Pieris japonica

  Rhododendron augustinii

  Rhododendron balfourianum

  Rhododendron brachycarpum

  Rhododendron ferrugineum

  Rhododendron ponticum

  Rhododendron hybrids—hybrids found infected have been derived from crosses involving Rhododendron arboreum,

  Rhododendron campylocarpum, Rhododendron catawbiense, Rhododendron campylocapum, Rhododendron caucasicum, Rhododendron dichroanthum, Rhododendron facetum, Rhododendron forresti, Rhododendron fortunei,

  Rhododendron galactinum, Rhododendron geraldii, Rhododendron grande, Rhododendron griffithianum,

  Rhododendron griersonianum, Rhododendron mscimum, Rhododendron ponyivum, Rhododendron dmitnoeii,

  Rhododendron strigillosum. Rhododendron viscidifolium, Rhododendron wardii, Rhododendron yakushimanum and possibly other species

  Oleaceae

  Syringa vulgaris

  Taxaceae

  Taxus baccata

  Theaceae

  Camellia japonica, Camellia reticulata, Camellia x williamsii (Camellia saluenensis x Camellia japonica)

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people are being employed by her Department fa) directly and (b) on a sub-contractual basis to survey gardens and nurseries for sudden oak death disease; and at what cost. [130613]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  About 85 inspectors from Defra's Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate, the Horticultural Marketing Inspectorate and the Central Science
  930W
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what volume of softwoods was harvested in the United Kingdom in(a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 2002. [129662]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 September 2003]: The figures are presented in the following table:

  Thousand m3 underbark

  1999

  6,867

  2000

  6,926

  2001

  6,997

  2002

  6,832

  Note:

  The figures are based on delivery volumes to wood processing industries.

  Sudden Oak Death Disease
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in what species of plant sudden oak death disease has been identified in the UK within the last year. [130612]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As at 16 September 2003, phytophthora ramorum (the cause of the syndrome sudden oak death in the USA) has been confirmed in the following species:

  Laboratory are employed directly to survey gardens and nurseries for phytophthora ramorum in England and Wales.

  Five people from outside the Department have been employed on a contractual basis for the period July to October 2003.

  The cost of employing staff working directly on survey work and of those employed on a contractual basis since 1 January 2003 is estimated at about £400,000.
  931W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of sudden oak death disease have been reported to her Department in the last year. [130614]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Nine confirmed reports from private nurseries and other independent consultants have been received by the Department in the last year.

  Sugar
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received on the proposed reform of the sugar regime [129636]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Although the European Commission have said that they are considering the future of the EU sugar regime, no specific proposals for reform have so far been tabled.

  We have, however, received representations from a range of interests within the UK industry including beet growers, beet processors, cane refiners and companies who use sugar in the manufacture of their products, as well as from our traditional overseas cane sugar suppliers and organisations concerned with developing country issues.

  There appears to be a general consensus that the current sugar regime is unsustainable, although there are differing views on the best way forward. We shall take account of all the views expressed to us as discussions proceed.

  Sustainable Development
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to make available to the general public information on the work of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. [130358]

  Mr. Morley
  The work of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) is communicated comprehensively through the United Nationsl own website http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/index.html and wider communications programme. Our own UK Government Sustainable development website http://www.sustainable-deveiopment.gov.uk/ contains a link to this site. Non-governmental stakeholders are consulted by HMG officials prior to the UK's attendance at these meetings, and are usually represented on the Government delegation. CSD's work is also included in Command Paper 5898 "The United Kingdom in the United Nations" published this month http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/Cm5898.pdf, copies of which were deposited in the HoC Library on Friday 5 September.

  Varroa Mites
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to combat the spread of Varroa mites; and if she will make a statement. [130356]
  932W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra funds a range of measures to assist the beekeeping sector in England through its bee health programme, which is delivered by the National Bee Unit (NBU), part of the Central Science Laboratory. In 2003–04, the programme will cost £1.235 million Under these measures, the NBU provides a free diagnostic and inspection service to beekeepers for varroa as well as training and technical advice to help them become more self-reliant in controlling the pest through improved bee husbandry. The NBU is also carrying out routine screening throughout England for varroa mites that are resistant to authorised pyrethroid- based treatments, having first detected them in August 2001. This year Defra also expects to spend around £248,000 on research and development to support our bee health work. This includes a three-year project that extends an earlier MAFF-funded investigation by Horticulture Research International on the use of entomopathogenic fungi as a biological control of varroa.

  Arrangements for bee health matters in Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly respectively.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of offenders subject to an antisocial behaviour order have subsequently been arrested(a) once, (b) one to five times and (c) more than five times. [129099]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of persons who have been issued with an antisocial behaviour order and have subsequently been arrested is not collected centrally.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of individuals in the age groups(a) 12 to 14, (b) 15 to 17, (c) 18 to 21 and (d) 21 plus, who have been found guilty of breaching an antisocial behaviour order received (i) a custodial sentence and (ii) a detention and training order; and if he will make a statement. [129114]

  Ms Blears
  The available information, relating to England and Wales for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 is contained in the table.

  Data for 2002 will be available in December 2003.

  Persons found guilty of breaching an Anti-Social Behaviour Order and the percentage given custodial sentences, England and Wales, 2000 and 2001

  Year and age group

  Total found guilty

  Percentage receiving detention and training order

  Percentage receiving other forms of immediate custody1

  2000

  Age 12–14

  10

  40

  10

  Age 15–17

  21

  38

  —

  Age 18–21

  5

  —

  20

  Age 21 plus

  30

  —

  70

  933W

  Persons found guilty of breaching an Anti-Social Behaviour Order and the percentage given custodial sentences, England and Wales, 2000 and 2001

  Year and age group

  Total found guilty

  Percentage receiving detention and training order

  Percentage receiving other forms of immediate custody1

  2001

  Age 12–14

  34

  29

  —

  Age 15–17

  92

  43

  —

  Age 18–21

  42

  —

  43

  Age 21 plus

  90

  —

  51

  1 Includes secure training order, young offender institution and immediate imprisonment.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been in the last six months for breach of an antisocial behaviour order in the north-west of England. [129470]

  Ms Blears
  Statistics of court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn of 2004.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied minors sought asylum in the UK in each of the last three years. [127863]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is given in the table. The data relate to applicants aged 17 or under. The data for 2002 are from new, more reliable, electronic sources, and are not fully comparable with data for previous years obtained from manual counts.

  Unaccompanied children1,2,3 aged 17 or under, applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, 2000 to 2002

  Total

  Applied at Port

  Applied in Country

  20004

  2,735

  1,395

  1,340

  20014

  3,470

  1,645

  1,820

  20025,6

  6,200

  1,240

  4,955

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Unaccompanied at point of arrival, aged (or if no proof) determined to be 17 or under and not known to be joining a relative or a guardian in the UK

  3Figures exclude age dispute cases.

  4May exclude some cases fodged at Local Enforcement Office and postal applications.

  5Figures not comparable with manual counts data prior to 2002.

  6Provisional figures.

  Information on asylum applications from unaccompanied asylum seeking children is published annually in the statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom", a copy of which is available in the Library, and from the RDS web site: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rdsi/immigrationl.html

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what support and advice he is giving to refugee and asylum support organisations to assist asylum seekers with travel to Croydon to lodge an asylum application; [128201]
  934W
  (2) what support he is giving to asylum seekers to enable them to travel to Croydon to lodge an asylum application. [128202]

  Beverley Hughes
  Those seeking asylum should claim on arrival in the United Kingdom or as soon as practicable thereafter. If their claim is post arrival it should be made at an Asylum Screening Unit (ASU). The three ASUs are in Croydon, Liverpool and Solihull.

  There is no provision to fund the travel of those seeking to lodge an application for asylum.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the operation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. [128203]

  Beverley Hughes
  Section 55, which came into force on 8 January 2003, is one of a package of robust Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act measures to restore credibility to the UK asylum system. Since February 2003, a number of test cases have been before the Courts. The most recent Court of Appeal hearing was on 27 August and the judgement is expected shortly. Statistics on the operation of section 55 have been published in the Home Office Asylum Statistics for the first and second quarters of 2003. We will continue to monitor its impact closely.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on how the European legislation on immigration will affect the amount of money the Government spends on financial aid for asylum seekers. [128682]

  Beverley Hughes
  As part of the package of measures designed to establish minimum standards on asylum foreseen by the 1999 Tampere European Council, the Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (2003/9/EC) contains provisions for financial aid for asylum seekers. This lays down minimum standards for the material reception conditions of asylum seekers and their dependants.

  Member states are required to transpose the Directive by the 6 February 2005 and work to take this forward is continuing. This will have a limited effect as the UK already meets the directives' provisions relating to financial allowances for asylum seekers.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that asylum seekers who come to the United Kingdom as children do not stay for a period longer than that to which they are permitted once they turn 18 years of age. [128683]

  Beverley Hughes
  Unaccompanied asylum seeking children who are permitted to stay solely because of a lack of reception and accommodation arrangements in their country are not granted leave beyond their 18th birthday. Once they turn 18 they must leave or apply for an extension of their leave. If that application is refused, or they do not submit any such application, their details are passed to the relevant local enforcement office for removal action. Removal action in these cases is undertaken as a matter of priority.
  935W
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were(a) accepted and (b) rejected in (i) 2002 and (ii) 1997. [128727]

  (2) what percentage of asylum applications were rejected in each year since 1997. [128728]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the outcomes of initial decisions made by the Home Office since 1997. These statistics relate to initial decisions only and exclude the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions. Initial decisions in any given year may relate to applications made in earlier years.

  Initial decisions1,2 on applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1997 to 2002

  Initial Decisions3

  Cases considered under normal procedures

  Backlog clearance exercise

  Year

  Total decisions

  Recognised as refugee and granted asylum

  Not recognised as refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Total Refused

  Granted asylum or exceptional leave under backlog criteria5,6

  Refused under backlog criteria5,7

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1997

  36,045

  (100)

  3,985

  (11)

  3,115

  (9)

  28,945

  (80)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  31,570

  (100)

  5,345

  (17)

  3,910

  (12)

  22,315

  (71)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1999

  33,720

  (100)

  7,815

  (36)

  2,465

  (12)

  11,025

  (52)

  11,140

  (90)

  1,275

  (10)

  2000

  109,205

  (100)

  10,375

  (11)

  11,495

  (12)

  75,680

  (78)

  10,325

  (89)

  1,335

  (11)

  2001(R)

  120,950

  (100)

  11,450

  (9)

  20,190

  (17)

  89,310

  (74)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2002(P)

  83,540

  (100)

  8,270

  (10)

  20,135

  (24)

  55,130

  (66)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications received in the same period.

  2 Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest 5.

  3Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  4Percentages for cases considered under normal procedures and those within the backlog clearance exercise are calculated separately.

  5Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog.

  6Includes cases where asylum or exceptional leave has been granted under the backlog criteria.

  7Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  (P) Provisional figures.

  (R) Revised figures,

  n/a Not available.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will outline the procedure used in deciding where to place asylum seekers. [128734]

  Beverley Hughes
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is responsible for accommodating and supporting destitute asylum seekers and their dependants. Asylum seekers who request that accommodation be provided to them will be dispersed on a "no-choice" basis to one of the cluster areas around the UK. Cluster areas are ideally based in towns and cities where suitable accommodation is available and where there is potential to provide a link with existing multi-cultural communities and where the support of local voluntary and community groups is available.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much individual asylum cases cost(a) central and (b) local government in each year from 1997 to 2002. [128735]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate within the Home Office assumed responsibility for the direct costs of supporting asylum seekers from April 1999. The average costs per week for the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 are as follows.
  936W
  Overall, it is estimated that 42 per cent. of the applications in 2002 resulted in grants of asylum (10 per cent.) or of exceptional leave to remain (23 per cent.), or in allowed appeals (10 per cent.). Comparable data are not available for 1997, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files. Exceptional leave to remain has now been replaced by Humanitarian Protection or Discretionary Leave with a much tighter set of criteria.

  Information on the number of asylum applications and initial decisions is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ immigrationl.html.

  Singles

  Families

  1999–2000 (estimated)

  150

  220

  2000–01

  134

  287

  2001–02

  122

  278

  The costs include payments made to local authorities for accommodation, as well as those made to the private sector. Further information on any other costs to local or central government, specifically related to asylum seekers, is not currently available.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to provide transport to allow asylum seekers held at the proposed Bicester centre to travel to Aylesbury and other towns; and what his estimate is of the cost of such a service to public funds. [129397]

  Beverley Hughes
  As a requirement of planning approval the operating contractor of the accommodation centre at Bicester will run a minibus service, principally for the use of staff and visitors, to provide an alternative means of travel to the private car. The service will operate between the accommodation centre and the towns from which it is anticipated that the centre's employees will be drawn; these are expected to be Bicester, Oxford,
  937W
  Aylesbury and Banbury. Asylum seekers supported at the accommodation centre will be allowed to use the minibus service subject to capacity, as well as compliance with reporting and residence requirements.

  We are in the process of appointing a contractor to design, build and operate the accommodation centre. Therefore the estimated cost of the minibus service is commercially confidential.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are detained under immigration law; and of these how many are awaiting removal from the UK. [130018]

  Beverley Hughes
  As at 28 June 2003 (the latest date for which information is available) there were 1,355 asylum seekers detained solely under the Immigration Act. Information on the number of these who were awaiting removal would be available only by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  Information on the number of asylum applicants detained solely under the Immigration Act is published quarterly on the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html. Data for those detained at the end of September 2003 will be published at the end of November.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children of asylum seekers have been held in detention in each of the last 12 months; and what the average length of time is for which each child is held. [130019]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the number of children of asylum seekers detained in each of the last 12 months and the length of time for which they were held could be collated only at disproportionate cost. However, we are reviewing the quality of data on all immigration detainees to assess whether more data can appropriately be published and, if so, how.

  Cigarette Lighters
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Cigarette Lighter Refill Gas Regulations; what plans he has for(a) increasing the age limit and (b) introducing a licensing system; and if he will make a statement. [128344]

  Caroline Flint
  The Cigarette Lighter Refill (Safety) Regulations 1999 prohibit the sale or supply of such refills to anyone under 18 years. The Regulations came into force on 1 October 1999 and are enforced by local authority trading standards officers. Local Trading Standards departments have a key public protection role, carrying out surveys within their areas to find out whether shops are selling lighter refills to under age persons, and investigating possible legal breaches.

  Although the number of deaths resulting from the abuse of butane gas refills and other volatile substances has remained fairly stable since 1991, the Government remain very concerned about any young person who dies in this way. We do not believe, however, that increasing the age limit to which the Regulations apply would help to any significant degree. Nor do we think a licensing system would add significantly to the controls which are already in place.
  938W
  In partnership with other Government Departments including DfES, Home Office and DTI, the Department of Health is putting together a comprehensive action plan, within the context of wider substance misuse policy, covering key areas such as prevention, manufacturing, research and legislation. A first draft should be available in autumn 2003.

  Country Policy and Information Unit
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the(a) content and (b) use made of the country information produced by the Country Policy and Information Unit. [129766]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office published research "Country of Origin Information: A User and Content Evaluation" on 1 September 2003. The full text of the research is available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r211.pdf.

  The research was commissioned by the Country Information and Policy Unit and conducted by the Research Development and Statistics Directorate (RDS) in 2001. The findings of the research relate to the position at that time and many of the report's recommendations have since been addressed.

  In particular, the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provided for an independent Advisory Panel on Country Information to be established to provide recommendations on the content of Home Office country information, to help ensure the content of Home Office country information, to help ensure that it is as objective as possible. The advisory panel will also meet the report's recommendations that an expert panel of topic and country specialists should be set up to review CIPU's material and that steps should be taken to improve consultation with external stakeholders.

  The Home Secretary is satisfied that the country of origin information produced by the Home Office is accurate and objective and the expert input of the advisory panel can only serve to enhance the quality of CIPU's material.

  The advisory panel is chaired by Professor Stephen Castles, Director of the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford and held its first meeting on 2 September 2003. The minutes of the panel's meetings will be published in due course.

  Depleted Uranium
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the dangers to those who come into close proximity to depleted uranium stolen from a site in Thurrock during July; and if he will make a statement. [126315]

  Mr. Browne
  I have been asked to reply.

  A container made from depleted uranium was in a van stolen from inside a warehouse on 7 July 2003. The container was part of the normal emergency equipment carried in case there should be a problem with a source of ionising radiation that had not yet been loaded into the van. The Health and Safety Executive investigated the incident and concluded that the container would be safe to approach and handle. Even if it was mistreated,
  939W
  such as by fire or explosion, only very extreme conditions would result in the possibility of airborne radioactivity that could lead to low level internal exposure.

  There is no reason to believe that the theft of the van was other than opportunistic.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the introduction of the one year period of reflection rule in cases of domestic violence to asylum seeking women, and to women and children who are victims of trafficking for sexual purposes. [127281]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is provision in the Immigration Rules to assist those who have sought leave to enter based upon marriage, whose marriage subsequently breaks down during the probationary period as a result of domestic violence, to settle in the UK, providing they meet certain criteria. There are no plans at the moment to extend this provision to asylum seeking women, or to women and children who are victims of trafficking for sexual purposes. We believe there are already adequate safeguards in the system for their protection, and that decisions on each case should be made on the basis of individual circumstances.

  Essex Police Force
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the approved strength of the Essex police force is; and how many vacancies there are. [129666]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office does not set approved strengths for police forces. Essex police had 2,995 police officers on 31 December 2002, a record number. The force employed 1,571 police staff on 31 March 2002, the latest date for which figures are available.

  I understand that the force intends to take on 105 officers during the remainder of 2003–04.

  Experience Corps Scheme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the Experience Corps Scheme. [130722]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The experience corps has been a useful project, which has enabled us to learn a number of lessons about attracting older volunteers. The experience corps were recently evaluated and the findings suggest that there were concerns surrounding their figures on volunteer recruitment. While they have attracted a significant number of volunteers, they are likely to fall short of their target.

  Our current funding agreement with the experience corps comes to an end in March 2004. We have decided not to continue to fund the experience corps beyond that date. We are still, however, committed to encouraging older people to volunteer.

  Hoax Telephone Calls
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals suspected 940W
  of making hoax calls to the emergency services have (a) been arrested and (b) had their telephones disconnected in the last two months for which figures are available. [129480]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of persons arrested for making false calls in order to cause annoyance is not collected centrally.

  Immigrants (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Scottish Executive on attracting immigrants to Scotland. [127209]

  Beverley Hughes
  Discussions between Home Office and Scottish Executive Ministers take place regularly on a number of issues, and these have included the Scottish Executive's interest in UK managed migration policies.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff there were in each office of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in the last year for which figures are available; and what the remit of each office is. [127206]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of full-time equivalent staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate by business area, at 30 June 2003 was:

  Number

  Immigration Service—(including border controls and removals)

  6,500

  Asylum support, asylum casework and appeals

  2,830

  Managed Migration (applications for leave to remain, nationality and work permits)

  1,690

  Non-operational (includes policy development and corporate services)

  1,880

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an Immigration and Nationality Directorate office in Scotland. [127210]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) has a Public Enquiry Office (PEO) in Glasgow. In May 2003, responsibility for this office transferred from UK. Immigration service to the IND. Since this transfer, the Glasgow office has expanded their services and now deal with all types of straightforward applications for leave to remain and settlement. Applicants are required to make an appointment prior to attending. There are no plans for any further offices to be opened in Scotland.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many items(a) deposited at and (b) posted to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have been (i) lost at and (ii) stolen from each office in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [128770]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information dating back to 1993 for each of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's buildings is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 12 June 2003,Official

  941W
  Report, column 1053W, and would add that as at 4 September this year, 2,872 requests for the return of documents had been received and 571 lost passport letters issued. A range of measures including the setting up of secure handling areas and the early return of sponsors' passports are currently being put in place to improve significantly IND's ability to find and return documents at the time of request.

  Immigration
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 1068W, on immigration, how long it takes on average to perform the checks to which he refers. [128518]

  Beverley Hughes
  When the decision is taken by an immigration officer to release a person on temporary admission the number of checks undertaken depend upon the individual circumstances of the case.

  The average time taken to perform the checks varies in view of this. However, given that some checks, such as the computerised Warnings Index, involve using information readily to hand to the Immigration Service they can be carried out immediately. Where the information has to be obtained from an outside agency, such as the police national computer or electoral registrar, the checks can take longer, but should still ordinarily be completed within a matter of hours.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce British citizenship tests for immigrants; how long they would take to complete; who will oversee the testing; and if those who fail will be deported. [129106]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act received Royal Assent on 7 November 2002. Section One, which relates to these requirements, will come into force by Commencement Order once its new requirements have been finalised.

  The "Life in the UK" advisory group, appointed by my right hon. friend the Home Secretary to look at the content, conduct and implementation of programmes of study, published its final report on 3 September. A copy has been placed in the Library. The Government are considering their recommendations and no firm conclusions have yet been made about the nature of tests and who will oversee them.

  Naturalisation applicants must have indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. They will not therefore be liable to removal solely on the basis of their lack of language skills or knowledge of life in the UK. As now, naturalisation applicants will be able to re-apply if they are unsuccessful.

  Independent Documentation Centre
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the outcome was of the consultation in 1998 on the establishment of an independent documentation centre to provide country of origin information in assessing the cases of asylum seekers; [129767]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to establish an independent documentation centre. [129768]
  942W
  Beverley Hughes
  The Consultative Group on Country Information reported in December 1998. It recommended, inter alia, that an independent documentation centre should be established to provide country of origin information for use in the asylum process.

  Home Office Ministers considered this recommendation, but at that time IND's priority was to support the recovery of asylum decision output through the expansion and improvement of advice to caseworkers, including implementing other Consultative Group recommendations about the format and content of country of origin information material produced by the Home Office's Country Information and Policy Unit (CIPU).

  In 2001, the Home Office commissioned research into the production and use of its country of origin information material. By this time, the CIPU had established a track record for accurate research, with its reports being widely used as source documents by other countries and for material produced by non governmental organisations. It was therefore decided to await the outcome of the research before proceeding with a feasibility study on the Independent Documentation Centre proposal.

  The research, which was published on 1 September 2003 in a report entitled "Country of Origin Information: a user and content evaluation", noted the on-going debate about whether an independent documentation would be the best way to assure the objectivity of the country of origin material used in the asylum process. The report suggested that if it was decided not to proceed with the independent documentation centre, measures should be taken to ensure country of origin information produced by CIPU was impartial and objective. The full text of the research is available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r211.pdf

  Rather than establishing an independent documentation centre, it was decided to build upon CIPU's existing structures and strengths, and introduce measures to ensure the quality and accuracy of the country information products used in the asylum process. The Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provided for an independent Advisory Panel on Country Information to be established to provide recommendations on the content of Home Office country information and help to ensure that it is as objective as possible. The Advisory Panel will also meet the report's recommendations that an expert panel of topic and country specialists should be set up to review CIPU's material and that steps should be taken to improve consultation with external stakeholders.

  The Advisory Panel is chaired by Professor Stephen Castles, Director of the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford and held its first meeting on 2 September 2003. The minutes of the panel's meetings will be published in due course.

  Iraq
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with(a) the Secretary of State for Defence and (b) the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
  943W
  Affairs on allowing British police officers to volunteer to go to Iraq to help train the Iraqi Police Force; and if he will make a statement. [129326]

  Ms Blears
  I have agreed to a request from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to ask the Association of Chief Police Officers to seek up to 200 volunteers to create a pool of United Kingdom police officers for potential deployment to Iraq to assist in the reform of the Iraqi Police Service. The pool is intended to sustain the deployment of up to 100 United Kingdom officers at any one time.

  Officers will be deployed only when conditions are right. The security position will be reviewed regularly.

  Leave to Remain
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis the figures of(a) £155 and (b) £250 were set for charges for in-country applicants wishing to extend their stay in the UK. [127102]

  Beverley Hughes
  Fees are set under Treasury rules to recover the full administrative cost entailed in considering applications and no more. This is calculated by taking the overall costs of processing applications divided by the number of decisions we expect to make.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated revenue per year is from the introduction of charges for in-country applicants wishing to extend their stay in the UK; what estimate he has made of the impact in the UK; and if he will consider applications for the fee to be waived. [127106]

  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in February 2002 in his White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain", that he would be introducing charges in order to fund the modernisation of IND. The regulations were laid on 10 July. IND already charges fees in respect of Nationality applications and for Travel Documents, and since 1 April 2003 for Work Permits.

  We continue to welcome the many foreign nationals who choose to study, work and live in the UK—they boost our economy and add to our thriving cosmopolitan society. Many apply to extend their stay each year, and it is right that they should meet the costs of that. The Government have made significant investment in recent years to improve all aspects of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, including the standard of service people receive when they submit applications. Charging will help us to continue to improve the efficiency and speed with which we process these applications, leading to ever higher levels of customer service.

  I have decided that all those who can legally be charged will be. Therefore, the only exemptions to this are EU nationals (and third country nationals who are their dependants); those making a claim for asylum or for protection under Article 3 of the ECHR; people applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain on the grounds
  944W
  of domestic violence where, at the time of making of the application, the applicants appear to be destitute; and those exempt from immigration control.

  Any further exemptions would leave an unfair burden on the general taxpayer or threaten the much needed service improvements which will be facilitated by charging.

  The estimated revenue for introducing charging for leave to remain applications is £90 million.

  Merseyside Police Force
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian support staff were employed by Merseyside Police in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [129472]

  Ms Blears
  The information is given in the table.

  Merseyside Police1

  Police officers

  Police staff

  31 March 2000

  4,085

  1,458

  31 March 2001

  4,081

  1,418

  31 March 2002

  4,125

  1,532

  31 December 2002

  4,180

  —

  1 Figures are full time equivalents

  Source:

  Home Office Statistics

  National Crack Plan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact of the National Crack Plan. [130492]

  Caroline Flint
  The National Crack Plan, which was published in December 2002, recognises the particular harm done by the supply and use of crack cocaine. It requires action under all four aims of the Updated Drug Strategy and focused particularly on the 37 areas that have been identified as high crack areas.

  Examples of resulting activity include; the introduction of legislation to fast track the closure of crack houses; the introduction, in collaboration with overseas Governments, of measures to reduce the supply of cocaine from the Caribbean; the piloting and evaluation of crack treatment services to expand provision and determine what works best, and the extension of diversionary activity programmes for young people to 31 high crack areas.

  There is still much to do to combat the harm caused by crack cocaine, but we are determined, through the National Crack Plan, to make a difference.

  Operation Ulysses
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial and administrative support his Department provides to Operation Ulysses concerning control of migration to Europe. [130020]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government have provided no direct financial support to Operation Ulysses. Contributions have instead been made in kind to both phases of the operation.
  945W
  The UK adopts a multi-agency approach to combating illegal immigration. For the first phase, HM Customs and Excise committed a Cutter vessel; and for the second phase the Ministry of Defence provided a Nimrod aircraft for surveillance purposes. All the travel and subsistence costs incurred by the crews involved will be reimbursed through European Community funding. Additionally, the Home Office and the British embassy in Spain have provided administrative assistance.

  Passports
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to protect the United Kingdom from the use of illicit passports. [128663]

  Beverley Hughes
  The United Kingdom has a range of measures aimed at preventing people using forged or improperly obtained documents entering the country. These include a network of Airline Liaison Officers overseas, a comprehensive visa strategy, international co-operation, development of expertise within the Immigration Service and special exercises.

  In the UK, the lead is taken by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate National Forgery Unit (NFU) who have links with other agencies including the police. The NFU provides equipment, training and intelligence to immigration officers in the UK, and to those serving abroad, including Airline Liaison Officers. Immigration officers, specially trained in forgery detection work, are based at all UK ports. 9,664 fraudulent documents were detected at UK ports in 2002, an increase of 46 per cent. over 2001.

  The NFU organises regular exercises targeting specific documents, which show a high rate of recorded abuse, and these have proven particularly effective. NFU also have a permanent presence at IND's main offices in Croydon, where they examine documents submitted in support of applications for leave to remain. In 2002, a total of 461 fraudulent documents was detected there.

  As part of its external borders policy, the UK maintains a network of 25 Airline Liaison Officers at key locations abroad. They offer advice, training and expertise to airlines, to help prevent the carriage of inadequately documented passengers to the UK. British immigration officers are now working alongside their French counterparts in Calais, offering advice on the validity of travel documents. The UK also works closely with the EU and G8 states, exchanging information and expertise to combat passport abuse.

  Visa Requirements
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will lift the visa requirement on Slovak citizens for entry into the United Kingdom. [129435]

  Beverley Hughes
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) on 13 May 2003,Official Report, column 160W.

  Work Permits
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits have been granted to people seeking to work in the British information technology industry in each of the past five years. [128313]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of work permit approvals in respectof the computer services industry in each of the past five years is as follows:

  Number

  1998

  5,786

  1999

  7,266

  2000

  17,288

  2001

  23,203

  2002

  19,877

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the India Business Group was asked to join the Work Permits Panel; and if he will make a statement on the balance of its membership(a) inside and (b) outside the UK. [128314]

  Beverley Hughes
  Work Permits (UK) seeks to ensure that the membership of the Information Technology, Communications and Electronic Sector Advisory Panel is balanced and represents all those stakeholders which have a direct interest in the operation of the work permit arrangements in this area and which are able to provide WPUK with advice on labour market conditions in this area. The membership of the panel comprises employer and employee groups, as well as other Government Departments and non-governmental organisations. The India Business Group was invited to join the Panel on the basis that it represents businesses located in the United Kingdom which are users of the work permit arrangements.

  Yarlswood
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will widen the terms of reference of the inquiry by Mr. Stephen Shaw into the Yarlswood fire to include the conduct of Group 4(a) in the period leading up to 14 February 2002 and (b) on the night of 14 February 2002. [129675]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is no need to do so. Stephen Shaw's terms of reference are such as to allow him to consider matters leading up to the events on 14 and 15 February last year.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will urge Mr. Stephen Shaw to take evidence in public during the inquiry into the events surrounding the fire at the Yarlswood Removal Centre on 14 February 2002. [129676]

  Beverley Hughes
  No. In view of the interest shown in the events at Yarlswood last February, we concluded that it would be preferable for the outcome of the investigation to be fully independent. Stephen Shaw was asked to take overall responsibility for the investigation. A full public inquiry would not be appropriate.
  947W
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the report presented to him in September 2002 by Mr. Stephen Moore about events leading up to, and including, the fire at Yarlswood on 14 February 2002. [129681]

  Beverley Hughes
  No. The material gathered by Stephen Moore must be regarded as work in progress, which Stephen Shaw will draw on as part of his inquiry.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 8 September 2003, ref. 128526, on Afghanistan, if he will make a statement on(a) the strategic importance of the Afghan National Army in promoting stability in Afghanistan and (b) the development of the Afghan National Army. [130695]

  Mr. Ingrain
  The Bonn Agreement of 5 December 2001 acknowledges that responsibility for security in Afghanistan lies with the Afghans themselves, but seeks international assistance in establishing and training new security forces. The creation of an effective and representative Afghan National Army is therefore an essential component in ensuring the future security and stability of Afghanistan. Development of the Afghan National Army continues.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the revised costing for the carrier programme will be accommodated within his Department's budget; and if he will make a statement. [128341]

  Mr. Ingram
  As announced by the Secretary of State for Defence in January this year, our estimate of the cost of the Demonstration and Manufacture (D and M) of the future carriers is around £3 billion. This estimate will be refined further during the remainder of the Assessment phase prior to establishing D and M contracting arrangements currently planned for Spring 2004.

  Funding for this project has been already been set aside within the defence budget and is allocated to the Equipment Plan as is the case with all defence equipment projects.

  Commissioned Ship Logs
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the last 10 years logs of commissioned ships have been lost overboard. [130941]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ships logs, which are produced by all units on a monthly basis, are occasionally lost. This may be for a variety of reasons. There is however, no central record which could provide details of missing or lost logs. That information could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Defence Exhibition
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost of holding the Defence Systems and Equipment International exhibition in September was to(a) the Ministry of Defence, (b) the Department of Trade and Industry, (c) Trade Partners UK and (d) other government departments and agencies; and if he will make a statement. [129776]

  Mr. Ingram
  In reply to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on 20 May 2003,Official Report, columns 677–78 W, I provided an estimate of the direct cost of the exhibition to the Ministry of Defence. The final cost remains to be established, but we do not expect it to exceed the estimated figure.

  The Metropolitan police estimate a total of £1.48 million in additional pay and other costs associated with policing the event. British Transport Police estimate their cost of policing the event as £250,000. As above, the final cost remains to be established.

  Neither the Department of Trade and Industry nor Trade Partners UK incurred costs.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the incidents involving Argentinian military personnel and(a) British troops and (b) Falkland Islands residents in the past six years. [129906]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces of the United Kingdom and Argentina participate in a range of joint activities as part of a bilateral defence relations programme. We are unaware of any significant incidents between Argentinian military personnel and our own armed forces or residents of the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) fisheries protection vessels and (b) maritime patrol aircraft have been operational in the Falkland Islands in each of the past six years. [129908]

  Mr. Ingram
  Fisheries Protection Vessels are provided by the Falklands Islands Government. In addition, the Falkland Islands Patrol Vessel is permanently stationed in the Falkland Islands, with the exception of short absences for visits and maintenance periods in South America. Maritime air patrol tasks are undertaken by assets permanently stationed in the Falkland Islands (currently a C-130 and a VC-10), and on various occasions over the past six years specialist maritime patrol aircraft have also been deployed to the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strength of(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force in the Falkland Islands has been in each of the last six years. [129910]

  Mr. Ingram
  Force level in the Falkland Islands for each of the past six years, broken down by service, are shown in the following table. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10, and, due to rounding methods used, totals may not equal the sum of the individual components.
  949W

  April 1997

  April 1998

  April 1999

  April 2000

  April 2001

  April 2002

  October 2002

  Naval Service

  260

  100

  50

  270

  40

  40

  40

  Army

  620

  600

  640

  580

  680

  640

  480

  RAF

  900

  850

  860

  770

  740

  670

  670

  Total

  1,790

  1,550

  1,550

  1,620

  1,460

  1,350

  1,200

  Force Readiness
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the(a) Army, (b) Naval service and (c) RAF units, required to be rapidly available, are at (i) very high, (ii) high and (iii) medium states of readiness. [125605]

  Mr. Ingram
  Data on forces at very high, high and medium states of readiness were collected in support of the Spending Review 2000 Public Service Agreement (PSA) target that by 2005 a minimum of 90 per cent. of rapidly available military units (described as those held at very high, high or medium readiness) should be at the required states of readiness. Information against this PSA target was last collected for the quarter ending 31 March 2003. Performance for that quarter was:

  Percentage of Rapidly Available Elements at Required Readiness States (quarter ending 31 March 2003)

  Service

  Proportion at very high, high and medium readiness (%)

  Royal Navy and Royal Marines

  91

  Army

  29

  Royal Air Force

  91

  1 Army data excludes forces deployed in the Gulf or recovering from emergency fire-fighting activities as these were not rapidly available for alternative tasks.

  In order to provide a more comprehensive view of military preparedness, performance against Spending Review 2002 PSA Target 3 is assessed on the basis of the readiness state of all forces. Details of the basis for the assessment are set out in the Technical Note to the 2002 PSA targets, available on the Department's website http://www.mod.uk. At the end of the first quarter of financial year 2003–04, the first time when performance was measured against Spending Review 2002 targets, 77 per cent. of force elements were assessed as meeting their readiness requirement with no critical weakness. These figures reflect the impact of both Operation FRESCO and Operation TELIC.

  I am withholding more detailed information about the readiness of our armed forces under Exemption 1 the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (1997).

  Future Rapid Effects System
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will incorporate TRACER technology in Future Rapid Effects System; and what assessment he has made of the possibility of incorporating TRACER technology in Future Rapid Effects System under an open international competition for Future Rapid Effects System development and manufacture. [130625]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Future Rapid Effect System project is currently in the Concept Phase. We are reviewing procurement options and no decision has yet been made on how to take the programme forward. It is too early 950W
  to state what technologies might be incorporated in the eventual solution but where possible we shall look to exploit past development activity.

  HMS Sheffield
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answers of 9 September 2003, ref 127274 and to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) of 4 February 2003,Official Report, column 174W, on HMS Sheffield, what the reasons are for the difference between the cost of operating HMS Sheffield in 2001–02 and the cost of operating ships in the same class in the same year; and if he will make a statement. [130315]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 4 February 2003,Official Report, column 174W. There was a misprint in Hansard and the figure for HMS Sheffield's annual operating costs should have read £35 million. The average annual operating costs for Batch 3 Type 22 Frigates I gave in my answer of 9 September 2003, ref 127274 was £11.9 million.

  The apparent discrepancy arose because the cost for HMS Sheffield included an element for depreciation and cost of capital, but excluded annual maintenance, while the costs provided for Batch 3 Type 22 Frigates included maintenance but excluded depreciation and cost of capital.

  When compared on a "like-for-like" basis, the average annual operating costs, based on direct costs charged to FY01–02, including costs for manpower, fuel, stores and other costs (such as port visits) were £8.1 million for HMS Sheffield and £8.3 million for Batch 3 Type 22 Frigates.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the source was for the allegation at Paragraph 2, Page 19, of the dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction of September 2002, that the Iraqi military were able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so; what attempts were made to verify the source of this information prior to deciding to include it in the dossier; on what date this information became available to British intelligence sources; whether details were passed on to the intelligence agencies of the United States and other allies for comment prior to publication; and whether protection has been offered or provided to the source since receipt of the information. [128519]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  As the ISC has reported, based on the evidence of the Chief of SIS, the source of the report was a senior military officer in a position to comment on the deployment of chemical and biological weapons. The

  951W
  source was regarded as reliable. The report was issued on 30 August 2002. The dossier which included the information about the 45-minute claim was passed for comment to the US Government. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on issues relating to the validation or protection of intelligence sources. The security and intelligence agencies are not within the scope of the Code of Practice to Government Information.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the basis for the assertion made by the Director of the Joint US-UK Iraq Survey Team, that Saddam Hussein had given orders for his commanders to fire chemical shells at forces invading Iraq. [128806]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not the Department's policy to comment on remarks allegedly made in a classified briefing to United States Congressional Committees. Coalition forces continue actively to pursue intelligence leads, documentation and individuals connected with Iraq's WMD programmes through the Iraq Survey Group.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what total additional amount has been spent by his Department on operations in Iraq in each month since 1 January; [130282]

  (2) what the cost was of deployment of troops to Iraq's neighbouring countries in the build up to the invasion of Iraq; [130281]

  (3) if he will estimate the total additional monthly cost of British operations in Iraq; [130280]

  (4) if he will estimate the extra monthly cost of one member of personnel in the occupation force in Iraq. [130277]

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

  Calculating all the costs of military action will take some time since they will include the cost of ammunition, bombs and guided weapons consumed in excess of peacetime levels and the cost of repairing and replacing equipment destroyed and damaged. We do however estimate the cost of preparatory activities in 2002–03 at around £700 million, less than the £1 billion set aside at Spring Supplementary Estimates 2002–03. This estimate includes the procurement or modification of equipment, increased maintenance and stock consumption, civil sea and air charter and provision of infrastructure in-theatre. A figure for total costs in 2002–03 including the cost of operations up to 31 March 2003 will be published in the Ministry of Defence's Resource Accounts.

  It is too early to estimate the costs likely to arise in 2003–04. Once these are known, additional funding will be sought in the normal way through Supplementary Estimates.
  952W
  Accounting records and costs are not maintained on a daily basis while force levels have fluctuated considerably during 2003–04. As a result, to provide daily or per person average costs would be misleading.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of how long it will take to clear unexploded ordnance in Iraq. [129863]

  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. To date, UK and other Coalition Explosive Ordnance Disposal Teams in the UK Area of Operation have completed over 1,500 tasks and destroyed over 500,000 individual munitions. Those munitions include not only those dropped or fired by Coalition Forces, but also many 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. It is not yet possible to say either what percentage of unexploded munitions have been cleared nor when all the work will be completed.

  Logistical Support
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effects he expects the changes proposed in the Government's review of logistic support to the armed forces to have on the jobs of those employed in providing this logistical support. [130785]

  Mr. Ingram
  The review team recently reported on the delivery of logistic support and made recommendations for improved effectiveness and efficiency. The proposed changes will have implications for Service and civilian personnel, but it is too early to say what the effects will be. These will be addressed in detail during the next phase of work, where some of the review's recommendations will be piloted and trialled. Any changes with significant investment or civilian employment implications will be subjected to thorough investment appraisals and trades union consultation before decisions are made. Personnel who are potentially affected will be kept closely in touch with developments. No changes will be made until we are confident that they can deliver better and more cost- effective logistic support to the front line.

  Manning Control Review
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers since 1997 who were subject to Manning Control(a) submitted a redress to the Army Board and were still dismissed and (b) had their redress rejected by the Board, but were retained. [130007]

  Mr. Caplin
  None.

  Medical Personnel
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) main battle tanks and (b) other armoured fighting vehicles, broken down by type, were deployed to Iraq for the purposes of military operations there; what proportions of each of these (i) were destroyed or seriously damaged in action, (ii) were

  953W
  rendered unserviceable through other causes and (iii) were operationally available at the conclusion of the fighting. [112088]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is as follows.116 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks (CR2) were deployed to theatre.
  982 other armoured fighting vehicles were deployed on OP TELIC broken down as follows:

  Vehicle type

  Number

  Challenger Armoured Recovery Vehicles (CRARRV)

  26

  WARRIOR—Medium Armoured Fighting Vehicles

  239

  CVR(T)—Light Armoured Fighting Vehicles

  212

  FV 430—Light Armoured Fighting Vehicles

  430

  AS90—155mm Artillery Piece

  32

  AVLB—Armoured Vehicle Launching Bridge

  12

  AVRE—Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineer

  12

  CET—Combat Engineer Tractor

  19

  Of the vehicles listed in the previous table, five were destroyed as follows:

  Vehicle type

  How destroyed

  CR2

  Tank Battle

  CVR(T) SCIMITAR

  Air Land Battle

  CVR(T) SCIMITAR

  Air Land Battle

  CVR(T) SCIMITAR

  Rolled Vehicle

  CVR(T) SULTAN

  Drowned Vehicle

  Availability of armoured vehicle types fit for combat between the beginning of the deployment and the conclusion of decisive combat operations on 30 April varied as shown:

  Vehicle type

  % Availability

  CR2

  73–97

  CRARRV

  81–100

  WARRIOR

  74–96

  CVR(T)

  78–100

  FV430

  75–98

  AS90

  88–100

  AVLB

  75–100

  AVRE

  67–100

  CET

  11–83

  Availability of armoured vehicles fit for combat at the conclusion of decisive combat operations is listed.

  Vehicle type

  % Availability

  CR2

  73

  CRARRV

  95

  WARRIOR

  78

  CVR(T)

  80

  FV430

  84

  AS90

  100

  AVLB

  100

  AVRE

  100

  CET

  53

  These figures were compiled under operational conditions and may therefore be subject to further revision.

  Project Isolus
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to select the final short-list for Project Isolus; what the extent of(a) public and (b) local authority consultation will be; and if he will make a statement. [130525]

  Mr. Ingram
  We expect to short-list those companies to be invited to undertake more detailed negotiations with the Ministry of Defence on Project Isolus by spring 2004. The public consultation, which will inform our evaluation of outline proposals to determine this short list, will comprise a number of focus groups in areas near to proposed sites. A citizen's panel, made up of random members of the public and representatives from the areas affected, will also be convened. In addition, the dedicated project website will be refreshed with unclassified versions of the proposals and will provide a discussion forum for the public to express their views.

  Consultation with local authorities affected by the outline proposals will be carried out and a stakeholder's group, to include representatives from local authorities and NGOs, will be convened. Lancaster University, who are running the consultation process on our behalf, are also contacting the local authorities to arrange a series of local access events such as drop-in centres or public meetings.

  It is expected that detailed negotiations with short listed companies will take up to three years to complete, and that a preferred bidder, solution and location will be selected in 2006. There will be further public consultation during this time.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consents would be required by a private company wishing to use a site in Scotland for(a) breaking up decommissioned nuclear submarines and (b) storing nuclear waste. [130993]

  Mr. Ingram
  Any private company involved in breaking up or storing the radioactive waste from decommissioned nuclear submarines on sites in Scotland would be subject to regulation by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, and would require consent from the Department of Transport if the radioactive waste were to be moved by land. The break-up site would also be subject to regulation by the Chairman of the Naval Nuclear Regulatory Panel who follows the principles laid down in the Nuclear Reactors (Environmental Impact Assessment for Decommissioning) Regulations 1999. With regard to radioactive waste management, both regulation and policy are devolved and, as such, are matters for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Scottish Executive respectively. Planning consents are similarly devolved.

  Low-Flying
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what his policy is in respect to low-flying RAF aircraft over tourism-dependent towns in coastal areas; [130458]

  (2) whether the RAF training sorties are instructed to avoid coastlines. [130462]
  955W
  Mr. Caplin
  RAF Flying training sorties are not instructed to avoid coastlines as flying in such areas can be considered a normal part of training. However, in order to reduce the danger of bird strikes from concentrations of seabirds or waterfowl, pilots are advised as a general rule to cross coastlines obliquely, and at a minimum altitude of 500 feet. In addition they are advised to avoid crossing the coast over resorts and holiday beaches. It is not possible to completely avoid all tourist-dependent towns as to do so would increase the impact of low-flying on other nearby areas.

  Rosyth Dockyard
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the role of Rosyth dockyard in the(a) construction and (b) equipping of the (i) Type 45 and (ii) new aircraft carrier; [130664]

  (2) whether Rosyth dockyard will be (a) the whole ship integration yard for the new aircraft carrier and (b) involved in the block construction of the new aircraft carrier. [130665]

  Mr. Ingram
  As the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 30 January, our view at this stage of the assessment process is that the future aircraft carriers should be built by a combination of four UK shipyards. In addition to the Babcock BES facility at Rosyth, we would envisage construction work being carried out by: BAe Systems Naval Ships yard at Govan; Vosper Thornycroft at Portsmouth; and Swan Hunter on Tyneside. The involvement of other United Kingdom shipyards has not, however, been ruled out. No final decisions on the allocation of work—including the construction of blocks and final assembly site—will be made until the Demonstration and Manufacture contract is let in Spring 2004.

  We envisage no involvement for Rosyth dockyard in either the construction or the equipping of the Type 45 Destroyer.

  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the role of Rosyth dockyard as a strategic asset for the Naval Fleet. [130666]

  Mr. Ingram
  Capacity within United Kingdom industry is kept under review to ensure that the requirements of the Navy for surface warship refit and repair work can be met. Rosyth dockyard has provided a significant element of that capacity for many years, both before and since privatisation, and should continue to do so as we move towards increased competition. In addition, Rosyth dockyard is one of four yards named earlier this year as having the potential for involvement in the construction and assembly of the new future aircraft carriers.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was to her Department for 956W
  (a) ministerial cars and drivers, (b) taxis, (c) train travel, (d) the use of helicopters, (e) airline tickets and (f) chartered aeroplanes in each year since 1997. [123085]

  Mr. Caborn
  With regard to the cost of ministerial cars and drivers and the cost of planes chartered for ministerial travel, the Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency (Mr. Nick Matheson) wrote to the hon. Member with the information yesterday, 17 September 2003. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The following table shows Departmental expenditure on travel by(a) taxis and (b) train and air combined. An analysis of expenditure on travel by train and various modes of air travel is not recorded on the Department's accounting system and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  All official travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules contained in the Department's staff handbook and all ministerial travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  £

  Financial year

  Taxis

  Rail and Air travel

  2002–031

  16,109.08

  518,549.28

  2001–02

  20,811.56

  433,910.61

  2000–01

  26,414.81

  456,909.51

  1999–2000

  21,685.66

  421,189.86

  1998–99

  15,890.53

  317,802.36

  1997–98

  12,967.23

  289,035.97

  1 Costs shown in 2002–03 are provisional pending finalisation of the Department's annual accounts.

  Digital Satellite Television
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will take steps to seek to ensure that ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 can continue to be received free of charge by digital satellite television. [130011]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 September 2003]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the chief executives of ITV, Channel Four and Five to ask them how they intend to solve this very serious issue. Their responses indicate they are considering various options. We are very closely monitoring their discussions, which I understand are making progress, and while it will not be appropriate to comment on current commercial negotiations, I will place details of their outcome on our website www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk.

  Films (North East England)
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial support her Department has given to film making in the North East of England in each of the last five years. [130391]

  Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the level of Government and National Lottery support through the UK Film Council and its predecessors for film in the North East of England in the last five years.
  957W

  Government funding (£)

  Lottery (£)

  Total

  1998–99

  1764.579

  169,467

  934,046

  1999–2000

  2778,245

  8,400

  786,645

  2000–01

  3452,800

  0

  452,800

  2001–02

  280,000

  323,530

  603,530

  2002–03

  400,000

  405,026

  805,026

  Total

  3,582,047

  1 This figure includes £445,800 from the British Film Institute.

  2 This figure includes £417,405 from the British Film Institute.

  3This figure includes £272,274 from the British Film Institute.

  Notes:

  1. In 1998–99 and 1999–2000, the Regional Arts Board (funded by the Arts Council of England) was responsible for supporting filmmaking in the English regions.

  2. Since April 2000, the UK Film Council has been responsible for providing Government and lottery funding to the English regions through its Regional Investment Fund for England Fund. Northern Film and Media, established in October 2002, is the regional screen agency for the North East of England.

  Free-to-view Broadcasting
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with broadcasters on the retention of free-to-view broadcasting on digital satellite. [130582]

  Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the chief executives of ITV, Channel Four and Five to ask them how they intend to solve this very serious issue. Their responses indicate they are considering various options. We are very closely monitoring their discussions, which I understand are making progress, and while it will not be appropriate to comment on current commercial negotiations, I will place details of their outcome on our website www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with OFCOM on free-to-view broadcasting on digital satellite. [130584]

  Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any formal discussions with OFCOM on this matter, as OFCOM has not yet been transferred any relevant functions. But this is a very serious issue which my Department as well as the ITC are monitoring.

  Gaming Board
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) whether the Gaming Board has concluded its investigations into the Lottery operations of charities linked to Solutions RMC; and if she will make a statement; [130538]

  (2) what (a) audits and (b) other checks the Gaming Board carried out between 1996 and 2002 concerning the gaming operations of (i) Breast Cancer Relief, Manchester and (ii) Breast Cancer Research, Scotland. [130539]

  Mr. Caborn
  I understand from the Gaming Board for Great Britain that it has completed its investigations into these matters. It intends to cancel their registrations to promote society lotteries under the terms of the 958W
  Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 and to write to the receivers who have been appointed to administer the two charities accordingly.

  The Gaming Board registered Breast Cancer Relief Manchester (BCRM) on 23 March 2000. It received BCRM's audited accounts in 2000 and 2001 and 13 returns relating to individual lotteries. The Gaming Board's inspectors visited BCRM on four occasions between 31 November 2001 and 16 December 2002.

  The Gaming Board registered Breast Cancer Research Scotland (BCRS) on 12 August 1999. It received BCRS's audited accounts in 1999, 2000 and 2001 as well as 17 returns relating to individual lotteries. The Gaming Board's inspectors visited BCRS in February 2003

  Libraries
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress she has made towards the goal of putting all libraries online. [129080]

  Mr. Caborn
  The £100 million Lottery funded People's Network programme has enabled all but 20 of the libraries in England to be connected to the internet, including all the libraries in my hon. Friend's constituency. This represents well over 3,000 libraries, a very fine achievement. The remaining libraries will go online after refurbishment or technical programmes have been completed. All libraries in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are online.

  Microsoft
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was paid to Microsoft in licensing fees by her Department and its agencies in each of the last three years; and how much has been budgeted for(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [130677]

  Mr. Caborn
  This Department paid licensing fees to Microsoft of £17,500 in 2000–01, £9,500 in 2001–02 and £234,000 in 2002–03.

  Future year payments are still under review and no decision has yet been taken on whether to continue with Microsoft or to look at other potential vendors including open source.

  Television Advertisements
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the monitoring of the extent to which television channels increase the volume of transmissions during advertisements; and if she will make a statement. [130396]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 September 2003]: None. Responsibility for advertisements broadcast on television rests with the broadcasters and the organisation which regulates broadcast advertisements—the Independent Television Commission (ITC). The ITC is independent of the Government and responsible for safeguarding the public interest in broadcast television advertising.
  959W
  The ITC's licensees are obliged, as a condition of their licences, to comply with the terms of the ITC's Advertising Standards Code which states that advertisements must not be excessively noisy or strident and that studio transmission power must not be increased from normal levels during advertising breaks. Responsibility for monitoring compliance with these terms rests with the licensees.

  In addition, the ITC monitors individual services as necessary. The ITC investigates all complaints of excessive advertising loudness and are able to take action against broadcasters who breach the conditions of the code.

  Under the Communications Act 2003 the Office of Communications (OFCOM) will have similar responsibilities for broadcast advertisements from the end of this year.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Capita
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (l)how many local authorities use Capita and their software package Academy; [129173]

  (2) how many local authorities who use Capita and their software package Academy for Housing Benefit have made complaints to the Department. [129171]

  Mr. Pond
  I have been asked to reply.

  The seven local authorities who contract out their benefit administration with Capita are Bexley, Blackburn with Darwen, East Cambridgeshire, Havant, Mendip, West Devon and Westminster. A further 65 local authorities have stated that they use Capita's Academy software package.

  We have received no complaints from local authorities using Capita or their Academy software. Local authorities have complete autonomy to select and contract with the provider of their choice.

  Civil Service
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many jobs under the remit of his Department in(a) the core Department, (b) non-departmental public bodies, (c) executive agencies and (d) independent statutory bodies, organisations and bodies financially sponsored by his Department and other such organisations, are located in (i) Scotland, (ii) each region in England, (iii) Wales, (iv) Northern Ireland and (v) overseas, broken down by (A) whole-time equivalent jobs and (B) the percentage per individual department, body or organisation. [127310]

  Yvette Cooper
  In response to parts(a) and (c), I refer the hon. Member to Table D of the annual publication "Civil Service Statistics", which covers permanent staff numbers (FTE basis) for each Government Department and their respective executive agencies. Table D shows civil servants by regional distribution.
  960W
  Copies of the publication are available in the Libraries of the Houses. The last edition, based on April 2001 data, was published in June 2002. The next edition, based on April 2002 data, was published on 24 July 2003.

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

  In response to part (b) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Executive NDPBs.

  Audit Commission for local authorities and the NHS in England and Wales

  Government Office region

  Whole-time equivalents

  Percentage

  London

  593

  23.3

  South East

  270

  10.6

  South West

  378

  14.9

  West Midlands

  189

  7.4

  East Midlands

  145

  5.7

  Eastern

  144

  5.7

  North East

  105

  4.1

  North West

  279

  11

  Yorkshire and Humber

  249

  9.8

  Wales

  192

  7.5

  Total

  2,544

  —

  Castle Vale Housing Action Trust

  79 posts all in West Midlands Region

  English Partnerships

  Number

  Percentage

  London

  86

  19.6

  South East

  146

  33.3

  North East

  78

  17.8

  North West

  112

  25.5

  West Midlands

  17

  3.9

  Total

  439

  —

  Housing Corporation

  Number

  Percentage

  East Midlands

  58.26

  10.2

  London

  324.95

  57.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  41.16

  7.2

  North West

  61.10

  10.7

  South West

  42.74

  7.5

  West Midlands

  40.74

  7.2

  Total

  568.9

  —

  Liverpool Housing Action Trust

  79 posts all based in North-West Region

  Standards Board for England

  96 posts based in London (96 per cent.), 4 people based in Yorkshire and Humberside—4 per cent.

  Stonebridge Housing Action Trust

  74 posts all based in London Region

  Tower Hamlets Housing Action Trust

  12 posts all based in London Region

  In response to part (d) independent statutory bodies, organisations and bodies financially sponsored by Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
  961W
  Residential Property Tribunal Service
  83 whole time equivalents (a regional breakdown is problematic as the Rent Assessment Panel areas do not correspond with the Government Office regions)

  Valuation Tribunals

  Number

  Percentage

  East

  18

  12

  East Midlands

  11

  7

  London

  25

  17

  North East

  10

  7

  North West

  21

  14

  South East

  17

  12

  South West

  16.5

  11

  West Midlands

  17

  11

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13

  9

  Total

  148.5

  —

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England

  15 posts, all full-time and all based in London

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales

  3.6 whole-time equivalent posts and all based in Wales

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's other financially sponsored bodies

  Number

  Percentage

  Groundwork

  East of England

  23

  1.2

  East Midlands

  257

  13.5

  London

  128

  6.7

  North East

  101

  5.3

  North West

  535

  28.1

  South East

  99

  5.2

  South West

  55

  2.9

  West Midlands

  318

  16.7

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  253

  13.3

  (i) Wales

  98

  5.7

  (ii) Northern Ireland

  22

  1.1

  Total

  1,899

  99.7

  Note:

  The figures are for headcount not whole-time equivalent jobs

  LEASE (The Leasehold Advisory Service)

  12 whole time equivalent posts all based in London

  Climate Change
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on climate change talks he has had since January 2003. [129450]

  Phil Hope
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister discusses a wide range of issues, including climate change, in meeting foreign visitors, colleagues and others.

  Election Costs
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much it cost to run the European elections in Scotland in 1999. [130461]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I have been asked to reply as the conduct and funding of parliamentary elections in Scotland is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The estimated cost of the European parliamentary election in Scotland in 1999 was £6.7 million.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 33W, whether his statement that there will be no reduction in response to 999 calls as a result of modernisation of the Fire
  Service applies to all fire brigades. [130693]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The statement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister applies to all fire brigades.

  Housing
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his Department's latest estimate is of the number of people in housing need and accepted as such by their local housing authority in each London borough. [130021]

  Keith Hill
  Local authorities in England report the numbers of households on their waiting lists (excluding tenants awaiting a transfer) as at 1 April on their Annual Housing Investment Programme returns. Their activities under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002) are reported on their quarterly PIE housing returns to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The latest available information reported by London boroughs is in the table.

  London boroughs

  Households on the Housing Register 1 April 2002

  Statutorily homeless households—number accepted as eligible, un intent tonally homeless and in priority need April to June 2003

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,668

  155

  Barnet

  7,030

  301

  Bexley

  3,487

  104

  Brent

  14,746

  304

  Bromley

  3,592

  236

  Camden

  8,147

  331

  City of London

  623

  10

  Croydon

  6,890

  261

  Ealing

  8,289

  348

  Enfield

  7,264

  318

  Greenwich

  >6,876

  1—

  Hackney

  8,930

  1—

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6,044

  1—

  Haringey

  12,585

  1—

  Harrow

  3,992

  85

  Havering

  1,888

  1—

  Hillingdon

  6,041

  216

  Hounslow

  6,369

  179

  Islington

  8.161

  1—

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8,294

  127

  Kingston upon Thames

  3,971

  95

  Lambeth

  14,228

  364

  Lewisham

  15,368

  368

  Merton

  4,361

  54

  Newham

  13,942

  417

  Redbridge

  5,671

  203

  Richmond upon Thames

  3,763

  92

  Southwark

  6,164

  425

  Sutton.

  1,653

  81

  Tower Hamlets

  7,837

  438

  Waltham Forest

  10,283

  300

  Wandsworth

  3,923

  241

  Westminster

  3,709

  316

  1 Data not reported.

  963W
  Notes:

  As local authorities have different practices for compiling and managing housing registers/waiting lists, direct comparisons between authorities can be misleading.

  Sources:

  ODPM: Housing Investment Programme (HIP) annual returns

  ODPM: P1E housing activity quarterly returns

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 15 September 2003, ref 129308, when he expects to allocate funds to Colchester's Arms Length Management Organisation; and how much will be allocated. [131011]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will confirm the funding for Colchester's Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) once the Housing Inspectorate notifies us that it has awarded the ALMO at least a 2* (good) rating. The inspection is currently planned to begin in February 2004. The conditional allocation for 2003–05 is £13.44 million.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the local authorities which are six months or more behind paying Housing Benefit; and how many local authorities who are six months or more behind payment use Capita and their software package Academy. [129172]

  Mr. Pond
  I have been asked to reply.

  We collect average processing times, by local authority, for Housing Benefit claims. The data provided by local authorities for the year ended 31 March 2003, and published on the our Housing Benefit website, www.dwp.gov.uk/housing benefit, show that on average no local authority took longer than six months to process new claims.

  Average processing times for local authorities whose Housing Benefit administration is contracted out to Capita and who use Academy software, range from 26 days to 131 days. Actual clearance times for individual cases within the average are not collected centrally.

  Local Rates
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what legal responsibilities local authorities have for new build houses with respect to maintaining(a) drains, (b) play areas that are incomplete and (c) roads which are unfinished. [129176]

  Keith Hill
  When granting planning permission local authorities may impose conditions to secure the completion of elements of the development. Both the imposition of conditions and their subsequent enforcement if not implemented is at the discretion of the local authority. Any decision to assume responsibility for streets which are not maintainable at public expense is entirely a matter for the relevant local highway authority. The sewers that serve developments are normally adopted by means of an agreement under section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991. After an acceptance period the sewers will be maintained by the sewerage undertaker. Drains to groups of houses may not be adopted, but the extent of such systems has been limited to 10 connections under a protocol produced jointly by Government, the water industry and house builders in March 2002. The protocol should limit the extent of drainage systems that are maintained by householders.

  Postal Ballots
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average voter participation rate was in the areas where a postal ballot was(a) held and (b) not held in local elections. [130459]

  Phil Hope
  The information requested is not held centrally and 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.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many trial postal ballots have been conducted in local elections; where they were held; and how much each one cost. [130460]

  Phil Hope
  Sixty-eight all-postal elections have been held since May 2000.

  In the May 2000 local elections, seven all-postal ballots were held in Bolton, Doncaster, Gateshead, Norwich, Stevenage and Swindon.

  In the May 2002 local and mayoral elections, 13 all- postal ballots were held in Chorley, Crawley, Gateshead, Greenwich, Hackney, Havering, Middlesbrough, North Tyneside, North West Leicestershire, Preston, South Tyneside, Stevenage and Trafford.

  In the May 2003 local elections, 33 all-postal ballots were held in Blackpool, Blyth Valley, Bolton, Brighton and Hove, Chesterfield, Copeland, Corby, Darlington, Doncaster, East Staffordshire, Gateshead, Guildford, Herefordshire, Hyndburn, King's Lynn and West Norfolk, Lincoln, Newcastle, North Lincolnshire, North Shropshire, Redcar and Cleveland, Rotherham, Rushcliffe, Salford, Sedgefield, St. Edmundsbury, St Helens, Stevenage, Stockton-on-Tees, Sunderland, Trafford, Telford and Wrekin, Wansbeck and Derwentside, Chester-le-Street and Wear Valley who held a joint pilot.

  In addition, Hackney and Stoke-on-Trent held all-postal ballots in their mayoral elections in October 2002, whilst all-postal ballots took place in 13 local authority by-elections during this period. These were: Aberdeenshire, Caldicot, Doncaster, Durham, Eden, Hackney, Kerrier, King's Lynn and West Norfolk, Newcastle, Stirling, Telford and Wrekin, Trafford and West Wiltshire.

  No central funding has been given to authorities conducting all-postal ballots.

  Travellers/Gypsies
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the definition is of(a) a traveller and (b) a gypsy as far as planning law is concerned. [130435]

  Yvette Cooper
  For the purpose of planning, a gypsy is a person of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, who wanders or travels for the purpose of making or seeking their livelihood. Members of other
  965W
  groups who do not meet these criteria are not treated as gypsies for planning purposes. For the purposes of planning law, there is no definition of traveller.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact on the future level of water supply in the South East of the projected increased numbers of houses to be built; and if he will make a statement. [130470]

  Keith Hill
  The South East Regional Assembly is responsible for regional planning for the South East and as such is working with the Environment Agency and also water companies on the impact of future development on both water supply and water quality.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister understands that the Environment Agency is currently assessing the business plans of water companies in the region and will be providing advice to the Assembly on investment requirements and impact on future development in due course.

SCOTLAND

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to change the remit of the Boundary Commission for Scotland. [129700]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The proposed legislation to retain the present number of MSPs will require to include provisions on the review by the Boundary Commission of the Scottish Parliament constituencies and regional boundaries.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many departmental staff are not based in Dover House; and where they are located. [128025]

  Mrs. McGuire
  At 18 September, 47 staff were in post in Edinburgh (including 28 staff of the Office of the Advocate General) and 29 staff were in post in Glasgow.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) foreign and (b) UK visits he has made since 1 April; what the cost was to public funds of each trip; who he met; and what gifts were received [126986]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Government publish the overall costs of all ministerial overseas travel and a list of all visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500 on an annual basis. The list for the period 1 April 2002 to March 2003 was published by my right. hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16 July 2003,Official Report, column 327W. The next list for the period 1 April 2003 to March 2004 will be published at the end of the financial year.
  966W
  In respect of gifts received, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 March 2003, Official Report, column 482W.

  The information on UK travel is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to discuss the allocation of lottery funds to Scotland. [128009]

  Mr. Darling
  I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a wide range of issues affecting Scotland.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions between 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003(a) departmental and (b) non- departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [126667]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Between 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003, one of the special advisers in the Department travelled abroad on one occasion, at a cost of £1,000.40. This was to Madrid and Segovia to accompany the Secretary of State at an intergovernmental conference on 'European enlargement, decentralisation and institutional reform' and at bilateral meetings with Spanish Government and regional Government Ministers.

  All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code, and the Civil Service Management Code.

TREASURY

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the yield of Capital Gains Tax in each year from 1990–91 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [130548]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The yield from Capital Gains Tax on a receipts basis, from 1990–91 to 2001–02 is published in IRS 2002 on the Inland Revenue website in Table 1.2. The link to this table is: http://www. inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/g_t02_1.pdf

  Estimates of Capital Gains Tax on a receipts basis, for 2002–03 and 2003–04 are published in Table C8 in the Budget Report 2003. Figures for later years are not available.

  Customs and Excise
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many(a) unauthorised persons, (b) illegal imports of cigarettes, (c) illegal imports of alcohol, (d) illegal imports of prohibited drugs and (e) illegal imports of meat were seized in each of the last five years by customs teams based in (i) Cornwall, (ii) Devon and (iii) Dorset; [127299]
  967W
  (2) what drugs were seized from yachts in the South West in the last five years; and whether each seizure was made by (a) static officers by routine inspection in each of the last five years and (b) officers acting on received intelligence. [127300]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise has made four drugs seizures in the last five years from all types of non commercial vessels in the area covering the Bristol Channel to the Isle of Wight including the Scilly Isles and the South West approaches, totalling 400 kilos of cocaine and 10 tonnes of cannabis.

  The intended landing points may have been elsewhere in the UK.

  Customs use intelligence information and targeted risk-profiling techniques to help determine how and when to deploy resources. Experience demonstrates that this flexible approach allows Customs to deploy in larger numbers, less predictably and with greater impact anywhere in the UK.

  In accordance with exemption 4 (law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Open Government Code Customs do not normally reveal whether or not they were acting on received intelligence in individual cases. Customs do not keep information on seizures delineated by county boundaries.

  Personal Income Tax Allowance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of raising the personal income tax allowance to(a) £5,000, (b) £6,000, (c) £7,000 and (d) £7,500 per year; how many people would cease to pay income tax as a consequence; and if he will make a statement. [130560]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full-year cost of making these tax changes in 2003–04 are set out in the following table.

  Raising the under 65 personal income tax allowance in 2003–04 to

  Cost (£ billion)

  Number of people cease to pay income tax (thousand)

  (a) £5,000 per year

  2.4

  500

  (b) £6,000 per year

  8.3

  1,800

  (c) £7.000 per year

  13.9

  3,000

  (d) £7,500 per year

  16.6

  3,500

  These estimates exclude any behavioural response to the tax change and are based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and consistent with Budget 2003.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of raising the personal income tax allowance to £10,000 per year for people aged 65 years and over; and if he will make a statement. [130566]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated full-year cost of raising the personal income tax allowance to £10,000 per year for those age 65–74 and 75 plus in 2003–04 is £2 billion.

  This estimate excludes any behavioural response to the tax change and is based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and consistent with Budget 2003.

  Road Fuels
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will quantify in pence per litre the value given to each of the main(a) environmental and (b) other benefits of road fuel gases which make up the rebate applied to such fuels. [130868]

  John Healey
  I refer the right hon. Lady to the answer I gave on 8 September 2003,Official Report, column 102W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard).

  Savings Income
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his estimate is of the cost of abolishing income tax on(a) all savings income and (b) all savings income up to the start of the higher rate threshold; and if he will make a statement; [130562]

  (2) what his estimate is of the cost of abolishing the existing capital gains tax and savings tax regimes, and taxing capital gains and savings as income under the existing income tax regime; and if he will make a statement. [130563]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The current tax yield from taxation of interest on savings in 2003–04 is set out in the following table.

  The current tax yield in 2003–04 from taxation

  £ billion

  (a) All savings income

  2.5

  (b) All savings income up to the start of the higher rate threshold

  1.4

  Note:

  This estimate is based the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and consistent with Budget 2003.

  This yield would be lost if no tax was charged, but we are not able to provide the full cost of such a change as other behavioural effects will substantially distort the impact on costs of such a move.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what procedures are used by his Department to brief officials appearing before select committees; [131381]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the production of his Department's Annual Report; [131382]

  (3) what accounting standards his Department used in producing the 2003 HM Treasury Annual Report; [131383]

  (4) whether he plans to use an external auditor to audit the Treasury's Annual Report. [131386]

  John Healey
  The Treasury's annual report sets out the performance of the department against its Public Service Agreement targets. It includes the same standard information as all departmental reports.

  As with all departments, the financial data for previous years contained in the report are based on the Treasury's accounts, which are prepared in accordance with United Kingdom generally accepted accounting principles (UK GAAP), modified as necessary for the public sector

  969W
  following advice from the independent Financial Reporting Advisory Board (FRAB). These requirements are reflected in the resource accounting manual (RAM) (available at www.resource-accounung.gov.uk).

  The Treasury's accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Accounts for the financial year 2002–03 (HC 999) were laid before Parliament on 16 July, and are available on the Department's website.

  The financial data for future years are based on the agreed departmental expenditure limit for the department, and compiled using the same accounting treatment.

  Briefing for officials appearing before select committees is provided by a range of people across the Department.

  Tax/NIC (South Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of(a) income tax and (b) national insurance contributions paid by South Gloucestershire residents in the latest year for which figures are available. [130380]

  Dawn Primarolo
  South Gloucestershire residents paid an average of about £3,300 in income tax in 2000–01.

  Data on National Insurance contribution paid in this area are not available.

  Transport Infrastructure
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being; taken actively to manage demand for transport infrastructure through tax increases. [130452]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor decides taxation policy after considering all relevant economic, social and environmental factors, including the implications for demand for transport infrastructure.

  VAT (Church Repairs)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on his proposal to reduce VAT on church repairs to 5 per cent.; and if he will make a statement. [130927]

  John Healey
  The Government are particularly concerned about the position of listed places of worship. That is why we asked the European Commission to bring forward proposals to extend the categories of permitted reduced VAT rates to include their repair, maintenance and improvement.

  We are continuing to press this case during the current EU review of VAT reduced rates and have, in the meantime, introduced the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme to provide an equivalent reduction in the cost of these repair projects.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of differential rates of vehicle excise duty on promoting the 970W
  manufacture and sale of vehicles with improved pollution characteristics; and if he will make a statement. [130545]

  John Healey
  The Government have introduced a range of measures to encourage the use of cleaner vehicles and technologies, including graduated vehicle excise duty, vehicle labelling and graduated company car tax.

  The effectiveness of all these policies are being evaluated including an assessment of graduated VED by the Department of Transport and the results will inform future policy advice.

HEALTH

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward amendments to legislation to allow registered midwives to(a) sell or supply and (b) administer a range of medicines in the course of their professional practice, with particular reference to the provision of compression hosiery for pregnant women considered at particular risk of deep vein thrombosis. [127592]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are already provisions under medicines legislation which allow registered midwives to sell or supply and administer a range of medicines in the course of their professional practice. Midwives can also supply certain non-medicinal products including compression hosiery for varicosis during pregnancy at national health service expense.

  Departmental Agencies
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the need for each departmental agency. [124698]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department conducts reviews of its executive agencies in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance, amended following the 2002 Agency Policy review. It has merged the Medical Devices Agency and Medicines Control Agency to form the Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. There are no current plans to change the role of the three remaining agencies but they will be reviewed as the Department's strategic needs are reassessed.

  ADHD
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what benefits are available to individuals and their families, following a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. [130263]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is a developmental disorder in children. In Great Britain, a child with this disorder may be entitled to disability living allowance if the symptoms impair the child's normal functioning to the extent that they amount to a severe disability and the normal entitlement conditions1 are met. The additional benefits which, subject to the normal entitlement conditions, are available to families

  971W
  in Great Britain with disabled children who qualify for disability living allowance are shown in the table. The Family Fund Trust, which is funded by government,

  Benefits available to families in Great Britain with children who qualify for disability living allowance

  Disability living allowance component and rate

  Additional benefits available

  Care component (all rates) and mobility component (all rates)

  Disabled child premium in income related benefits2, or the disability element of child tax credit

  Highest rate care component

  Enhanced disability premium and the disabled child premium in income related benefits, or the disability element and severe disability element of child tax credit.

  Highest or middle rate care component

  Carer's allowance3

  Higher rate mobility component

  Access to the Motability, "Blue Badge" and Vehicle Excise Duty Exemption schemes

  1 Entitlement to disability living allowance depends on the effects that a severe physical or mental disability have on a person's need for personal care and/or their ability to walk. It is the overall picture of need in the individual case, rather than the specific diagnosis that is important. Children under 16 years of age with a severe disability can qualify for any rate of the the care component arid the lower rate mobility component of disability living allowance if they are so severely disabled that their need for attention, supervision or watching over by another person is substantially in excess of that normally required by children of their age. Those who qualify for the highest rate of the care component may also qualify for the higher rate of the mobility component if they exhibit extreme and unpredictable disruptive behaviour as the result of arrested or incomplete development of the brain.

  2 Income support, jobseeker's allowance (income related), housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  3 Entitlement to carer's allowance can also give entitlement to the carer premium in income related benefits.

  The benefits available to individuals and their families in Northern Ireland, following a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, are a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Budgets
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health(a) how many staff are employed and (b) what the total budget in 2003–04 is for the (i) Commission for Health Improvement, (ii) National Institute for Clinical Excellence, (iii) Food Standards Agency, (iv) National Care Standards Commission, (v) General Social Care Council and (vi) Health and Safety Executive. [128332]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Health and Safety Executive is an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions. The other information requested is shown in the following table:

  Body

  Number of stuff

  Total budget for 2003–04 (£ million)

  Commission for Health Improvement

  347

  35

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence

  43

  17.8

  Foods Standards Agency

  738

  119

  Meat Hygiene Service

  1,597

  28

  National Care Standards Commission

  2,400

  133.3

  General Social Care Council

  115

  52.6

  Notes:

  (i) The staff numbers are the latest available figures expressed as whole-time equivalents

  (ii) The Total Budgets shown are estimated plan forecasts.

  (iii) The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is a non-Ministerial Department, governed by a Board, and accountable to Parliament and the devolved administrations through Health Ministers. The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) is an executive agency of FSA.)

  (iv) The total budget of the FSA includes £8.277 million from the devolved administrations and payments to the MHS in respect of specified risk material (SRM)

  (v) FSA staff figures are on a UK basis and include all workers (eg temporary contract workers).
  972W
  also provides grants to families of severely disabled children in order to ease the stress of their day-to-day life.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled in NHS hospitals in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [127495]

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled for non-clinical reasons in each of the last six years. [127321]

  Mr. Hutton
  Quarterly data are collected on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non- clinical reasons (i) at the last minute (i.e. on the day patients are due to arrive, or after arrival in hospital, or on the day of their operation), and (ii) the number of patients not admitted within 28 days of a 'last minute' cancellation as part of the NHS Plan cancelled operations guarantee.

  Cancelled operations data at England level and at national health service trust and strategic health authority level are available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/data requests.htm

  Departmental Computer Security
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been(a) budgeted and (b) spent by his Department since April 2002 on combating (i) computer fraud, (ii) preventing theft of computers and (iii) safeguarding the security information held on computer; and if he will make a statement. [128771]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not have specific financial budgets for combating computer fraud, computer theft or protecting its information. These areas are subsumed within a wide variety of other budgets. Responsibility, from 1 April 2002 to 1 April 2003, for countering fraud and corruption in all its forms within the Department of Health fell to the National Health Service Counter Fraud Service. From 1 April 2003 this responsibility was transferred to a newly formed special health authority, the Counter Fraud and Security Management Service.
  973W
  The Department of Health takes the protection of its computers and information systems very seriously and complies with Her Majesty's Government's Manual of Protective Security. Security measures are kept constantly under review and the Department employs a dedicated and professional security unit as part of this commitment. The Department's information technology network achieved compliance with the British Standard 7799 which covers best practice for information security management at the end of 2002. In 2002 the Department of Health awarded a new service support contract to Computer Sciences Corporation and their security expertise was significant in them winning this bid.

  Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the organisations which(a) have been awarded and (b) are being considered for franchises for operating private diagnosis and treatment centres, indicating the location of each centre. [129747]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 September 2003]: The Department of Health announced the shortlist of preferred bidders on 12 September 2003 that will provide new treatment centres to contribute to the Government's drive to cut waiting times for patients. The 26 areas covered by the new scheme along with the shortlist of companies is set as listed. These include two mobile units, which will deliver services to patients in towns across England. All likely preferred bidders are subject to final contract negotiation and agreement and schemes will only proceed if they provide the required level of value for money for national health service commissioners. This represents about two thirds of the total programme. Further announcements will be made in due course.

  The treatment centres will be based at the following locations:

  South West Peninsula (Mercury Health Ltd.)

  Lincolnshire (Mercury Health Ltd.)

  Horton Hospital, North Oxford (Mercury Health Ltd.)

  North East Yorks (Mercury Health Ltd.)

  Southampton (Mercury Health Ltd.)

  Northumberland (Mercury Health Ltd.)

  East Berkshire (1. Slough 2. Bracknell 3. Maidenhead and 4. Windsor/Ascot) (Mercury Health Ltd.)

  Didcot, Oxfordshire (Mercury Health Ltd.)

  Ashford, Surrey (Mercury Health Ltd.)

  Maidstone (Care UK Afrox)

  Barlborough Links, Nottinghamshire (Care UK Afrox)

  Derriford, Plymouth (Care UK Afrox)

  Chase Farm, Barnet, London (Anglo Canadian)

  King George Hospital, Redbridge (Anglo Canadian)

  Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital, Kings Cross (Anglo Canadian)

  Bradford (Nations Healthcare)

  Burton (Nations Healthcare)

  Daventry (Birkdale Clinic)

  Trafford, Greater Manchester (Netcare UK)

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore (New York Presbyterian)

  Shepton Mallet, Somerset (New York Presbyterian)

  974W
  There will be two mobile units offering ophthalmology services in the following areas:

  Cheshire and Merseyside (Netcare UK)

  Cumbria and Lancashire (Netcare UK)

  Horton, Oxfordshire (Netcare UK)

  Wycombe, Bucks (Netcare UK)

  North Tyneside (Netcare UK)

  South West Oxfordshire (Netcare UK)

  North West Peninsula (Netcare UK)

  Dorset/Somerset (Netcare UK)

  Kent/Medway (Netcare UK)

  Hants and Isle of Wight (Netcare UK)

  Surrey and Sussex (Netcare UK)

  Thames Valley (Netcare UK)

  The preferred bidders to run the schemes are:

  Netcare UK (South Africa)

  Mercury Health Ltd (UK)

  Care UK Afrox (South Africa)

  Anglo Canadian (Canada)

  Nations Healthcare (USA)

  Birkdale Clinic (UK)

  New York Presbyterian (USA).

  Disability Legislation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce legislation on disability; what representations he has received over the need for such legislation; and if he will make a statement. [130208]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  On 1 July, Parliament approved Regulations which will make significant changes to the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. Ending various employment and occupational exemptions will bring within scope of the Act over one million additional employers and around seven million jobs, in which 600,000 disabled people already work. These Regulations implement the main employment recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force that were supported by the Government in our document "Towards Inclusion". As we have said, we shall be laying further Regulations in due course—such as on occupational pensions—which will make further changes to the DDA's employment provisions. All these regulations will come into force in October 2004.

  Later this year we will publish a draft Disability Bill which will contain proposals on other measures recommended by the Task Force and outlined in "Towards Inclusion", such as changes to the DDA affecting the public sector, transport and premises, some widening of the definition of disability and covering membership of larger private clubs.

  We intend that the draft Bill should undergo pre- legislative scrutiny. We continue to receive a wide range of representations from disability organisations, business, trade unions, employers, disabled people and others on civil rights legislation for disabled people.

  Health Conferences
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of sending(a) Ministers and (b) civil servants to health conferences in (i) the UK and (ii) overseas in each of the last five years. [127378]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Health Vacancies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for(a) nurses, (b) doctors and consultants and (c) radiographers and other technical positions, broken down by NHS trust. [106626]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service vacancy survey collects information on the number of posts which trusts are actively trying to fill which have been vacant for three months or more. The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Hip Replacements
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England with hip replacements had to undergo a hip revision within(a) three years, (b) five years and (c) 10 years in the last 12 months. [127539]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is unable to provide this information, as the Hospital Episode Statistics data do not identify individual patients.

  In 2000, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence published guidance on the selection of prosthesis and set a benchmark that no more than 10 per cent. of patients should require revision surgery within 10 years, or evidence from at least three years follow up which when extrapolated, implies an equivalent performance.

  The Department established a National Joint Registry (NJR) for total hip and knee replacements in April 2003. This collects data on hip and knee replacements carried out in the national health service and private sector in England and Wales. The NJR will look at the performance of hip and knee implants, and will over time be able to provide this information.

  Hospital Bed Occupancy
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the average bed occupancy rate, as a percentage, for each NHS hospital trust in England from April 2001 to April 2003. [127496]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on average bed occupancy rates are available on an annual basis, at national health service trust level and for England, for the years 2000–01 to 2001–02 on the Department of Health's website at: www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/data_requests/beds_open_overnight.htm

  Data for 2002–03 are not yet available.

  The latest available statistics for 2001–02 show that the number of general and acute beds increased by over 1,500 to 136,583 over the previous two years. This represents over two thirds of the target set out in the NHS Plan.

  Hospital Cleanliness
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation he has undertaken into the efficiency of the league tables for hospital cleanliness; and what plans he has to amend them. [127707]

  Mr. Hutton
  The patient environment action team programme, and the resulting 'traffic light' ratings awarded to hospitals, have been significant factors in improving the environmental conditions, including standards of cleanliness, in hospitals.

  Since the introduction of the system the number of 'Green' hospitals has increased from 22 per cent. to 78 per cent. (2000–2003) while the number being assessed as 'Red' has fallen from 36 per cent. to zero over the same period.

  There are no plans at present to change the system.

  Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in negotiations with the European Commission on the proposed Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive. [128312]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and, before April 2003, the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) represented the UK Government in the negotiations on the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products that have taken place in the Council of Ministers Working Group in 2002 and 2003 under the chairmanship of successive European Union Presidencies. Before the publication in 2002 of the European Commission's formal proposals for a Directive the MCA had a range of discussions with the European Commission and representatives of other Member States, predominantly in the European Pharmaceutical Committee and an expert group set up by that Committee, about the emerging proposals.

  During this period the MCA and later the MHRA has held discussions on a number of occasions with the UK herbal sector about issues and priorities to be pursued in the negotiations, notably the case for flexibility to take greater account of evidence of traditional use from outside the EU and to permit vitamins and minerals to be added to traditional herbal remedies registered under the proposed Directive.

  Mixed-sex Hospital Wards
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to end all use of mixed sex wards. [130997]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health has set three objectives to support the elimination of mixed sex accommodation. A small number of hospitals have yet to achieve these objectives on every ward. This is because a number of new hospitals and healthcare facilities are currently in construction, which will upon completion bring all wards to the required standards.
  977W
  Guidance issued to national health service trusts on the achievement of the objectives made it clear that a variety of ward layouts and designs could be used to deliver separate sleeping accommodation, including the use of single-sex wards, or combinations of single-sex bays and individual rooms. Single-sex bays, together with increasing numbers of single rooms, are common features of modern hospital design both here and abroad, and can provide perfectly acceptable levels of privacy and dignity.

  NHS Charges
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) items and (b) procedures in the NHS for which charges are made. [127559]

  Mr. Hutton
  Treatment provided by the national health service is free at the point of delivery except in cases where specific legislation has been passed allowing a charge to be made. The current items and services for which a charge can be made are:

  prescriptions;

  dental services;

  the supply of optical appliances by the hospital eye service;

  treatment of private patients;

  treatment of overseas visitors;

  appliances such as wigs and fabric supports.

  The NHS can also charge for the provision of accommodation and services for private resident and non-resident patients.

  In addition to the above, NHS hospitals can charge for certain patient services using income generation powers. However a charge can only be made where the service is considered to be additional treatment over and above the normal service provision. Any item or service that is considered to be an integral part of a patient's treatment by their clinician remains free of charge.

  NHS IT Programme
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the McKinsey report on the national IT programme for the NHS made an assessment of the total cost of the programme. [129230]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]: The report in question was commissioned to help inform planning for the National Programme for Information Technology in the National Health Service. It did not attempt to assess the cost of the national programme, funding for which was announced in January 2003.

  Laboratory

  NHS Trust

  2002–03 budget (£)

  Staff complement (WTE)1

  Ashford

  East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,799,466

  62.69

  Brighton

  Brighton and Sussex University NHS Trust

  1,868,306

  42.44

  Carlisle

  North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,251,210

  30.43

  Chelmsford

  Mid Essex Hospital NHS Trust

  1,212,129

  37.82

  Chester

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  1,728,815

  47.67

  Central Middlesex

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,625,217

  30.70

  Pain Relief
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what management and assessment services and facilities are available to those suffering from persistent pain. [128080]

  Mr. Hutton
  It remains the responsibility of primary care trusts (PCTs) to commission services for people with pain, taking account of the resources they have available and the needs of their wider populations. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) report on pain services, published in April 2000, highlighted variations in access to pain services throughout the country. It made recommendations to national hospital service acute trusts and commissioners on how pain services should be delivered in order to reduce variations to access.

  It recommended that PCT commissioners should review local provision of pain services, looking particularly at the provision of more specialised treatments on a networked basis. In this review, account should be taken of the needs of both adults and children, and include patients with acute pain resulting from sudden illness or accident, as well as post-operative pain and chronic pain. Trusts should also agree with commissioners the services and resources which are appropriate to meet local needs.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has been reviewing pain management techniques as part of the Supportive and Palliative Care Guidance. This provides a clearer idea of what therapies are effective and areas where further work is needed. Part A of the guidance is available in draft on the NICE website at http://www.nice.org.uk/.

  Hospital Security
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are under(a) police guard and (b) armed police guard in (i) NHS and (ii) private hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [128766]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not routinely collected centrally.

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the Public Health Laboratory Service laboratories that(a) will transfer and (b) have transferred to NHS trusts, broken down by (i) trust, (ii) date of transfer, (iii) current running cost and (iv) staffing complement. [124310]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The running costs and staffing numbers for the laboratories transferred to the national health service are shown in the following table. All the laboratory transfers were completed on or before 1 April 2003.
  979W

  Laboratory

  NHS Trust

  2002–03 budget (£)

  Staff complement (WTE)1

  Coventry

  University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

  2,145,805

  49.78

  Dorchester

  West Dorset General Hospital NHS Trust

  1,134,621

  22.99

  Exeter

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,979,930

  49.29

  Gloucester

  Gloucester Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,465,721

  45.71

  Hereford

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  975,290

  23.73

  Hull

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,366,917

  61.16

  Ipswich

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  1,279,748

  34.75

  Leicester

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  2,812,959

  68.30

  Lincoln

  Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospital NHS Trust

  998,295

  23.59

  Liverpool

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,934,072

  54.38

  Luton

  Luton and Dunstable NHS Trust

  1,229,500

  28.89

  Middlesbrough

  South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,372,303

  36.73

  Norwich

  Norfolk and Norwich University NHS Trust

  2,055,942

  52.34

  Nottingham

  Nottingham University NHS Trust

  3,105,899

  80.38

  Peterborough

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  944,533

  25.00

  Plymouth

  Plymouth NHS Trust

  2,125,294

  44.17

  Poole

  Poole Hospital NHS Trust

  2,329,965

  52.67

  Portsmouth

  Portsmouth Hospital NHS Trust

  1,984,922

  47.01

  Preston

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,426,407

  72.21

  Reading

  Royal Berkshire and Battle NHS Trust

  1,644,385

  35.94

  Salisbury

  Salisbury Healthcare NHS Trust

  842,955

  17.32

  Sheffield

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,354,821

  58.60

  Shrewsbury

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust

  1,775,981

  36.47

  Stoke

  North Staffordshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,756,098

  39.34

  Taunton

  Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  1,474,244

  32.28

  Truro

  Royal Cornwall Hospital NHS Trust

  2,182,102

  44.80

  1 Whole-time equivalent

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organisations tendered when the present contract for car parking at Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust was awarded; and how long the contract lasts. [129756]

  Mr. Hutton
  Four organisations responded to the tendering exercise for this contract in 1999. The contract length is five years with an option to extend for a further two.

  Stem Cell Research
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's letter of 15 January, PO1021981, what action he has taken as a result of the House of Lord's findings in relation to stem cell research and therapeutic cloning; and if he will make a statement. [128416]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Government policy in this area of research has evolved following a number of influential reports, the most recent being that of the House of Lords Select Committee in February 2002. All of these reports have stressed the great potential of stem cell research and have concluded that no single source of stem cells should be worked on exclusively. The Government have made available, through the research councils, £40 million over two years for stem cell research, including stem cells derived from embryos, adult tissue, and cord blood.

  The House of Lords confirmed, in its judgement of 13 March 2003, that embryos created by cell nuclear replacement (commonly known as therapeutic cloning) are fully regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Subject to strict criteria, licences
  980W
  for the creation by therapeutic cloning of embryos for research may be granted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  Wage Costs
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the wage costs of(a) administration and (b) estates staff within the NHS were in 2002–03. [130322]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information will be available in February 2004.

  Waiting Times/Lists
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients in each hospital trust area were waiting for treatment for more than 12 months(a) in 2002–03 and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available. [130283]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 September 2003]: The table provides the percentage of patients at those trusts showing patients waiting over 12 months at either March or July 2003 or both. For all remaining trusts the percentage of patients waiting over 12 months at both periods was zero.

  Patients waiting for elective in-patient admission: Position at month end: England (provider based)

  Percentage of patients waiting over 12 months

  NHS trust/primary care trust

  March 2003

  July 2003

  East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  0.51

  0.09

  Gloucestershire Hospitals

  0.00

  0.01

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.00

  0.03

  James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust

  0.00

  0.03

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.00

  0.01

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

  0.03

  0.02

  Medway NHS Trust

  0.19

  0.06

  North Bristol NHS Trust

  0.01

  0.00

  981W

  Patients waiting for elective in-patient admission: Position at month end: England (provider based)

  Percentage of patients waiting over 12 months

  NHS trust/primary care trust

  March 2003

  July 2003

  North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.12

  0.00

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.00

  0.31

  South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.00

  0.12

  St. Mary's NHS Trust

  0.00

  0.02

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  0.00

  0.04

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  0.12

  0.00

  West London Mental Health NHS Trust

  7.69

  0.00

  Weston Area Health NHS Trust

  0.18

  0.00

  Source:

  Department of Health forms KH07 and Monthly monitoring

HOUSE OF COMMMONS COMMISSION

  Parliamentary Works
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what the estimated cost is of the work carried out to the Palace of Westminster in(a) 2002, (b) 2003 and (c) 2004; and how many workmen (i) are and (ii) have been employed on the Parliamentary Estate in connection therewith. [129606]

  Sir Archy Kirk wood
  The cost to the House of Commons of maintenance and new works on the Parliamentary Estate in the financial year 2002–03 was £29.5 million. For the financial year 2003–04 the forecast cost is £24.2 million and for 2004–05 it is £18.4 million. Due to the many estate-wide services, it is not possible to provide accurate figures for individual buildings or to provide figures by calendar years. During the summer recess of 2002 approximately 1,200 contractors' personnel were employed on site and in the summer of 2003 the number is approximately 1,000.

  The House of Commons Commission can answer only for those parts of the Parliamentary Estate for which this House is responsible.

EDUCATION

  Online Centres
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many UK online centres were opened in deprived or rural wards across the north west in 2002–03; and how many centres there are. [128566]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 9 July 2003.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the cost of the guarantee of free tuition to help adults study for a Level 2 qualification in(a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [130720]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 17 September 2003]: The new entitlement to free tuition for adults studying for a first full level 2 qualification will be phased in from
  982W
  2004–05: we expect to introduce the entitlement on a partial basis in academic year 2004–05. Subject to experience in that first year, the entitlement will proceed to roll out nationally from 2005–06. This will enable us to test out the impact on demand. The cost will depend on learner take-up of the entitlement. We have to target a greater proportion of state funding towards priority groups, so those with the greatest need have opportunities to acquire relevant skills and qualifications. Over time, colleges and other providers will need to better focus their resources to support this aim.

  Bureaucracy (Universities)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) when he expects to receive the findings of the Committee chaired by David Van de Linde in relation to bureaucracy in universities; and if he will make a statement; [128415]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the work in progress of the Better Regulation Review Group under Professor Van de Linde. [129994]

  Alan Johnson
  Professor Van de Linde has been asked to chair the Better Regulation Review Group, a committee of senior stakeholders from across higher education, to consider the issue of bureaucracy in higher education. The Group first met in March, since when it has been in regular discussions with the Department on regulatory matters, notably the Regulatory Impact Assessment of the White Paper The future of higher education, and aspects of it, such as the development of the Office for Fair Access. An important responsibility of the Group is to oversee the implementation of the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force report Higher education: Easing the burden. I look forward to receiving an interim report on the status of the recommendations from Professor Van de Linde in November.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make it his policy to ensure that workers facing redundancy within the Learning and Skills Council are given the opportunity to retrain for other jobs within the organisation; and if he will make a statement. [129793]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Connexions
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many personal advisers Connexions employed, broken down by region, in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [130717]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 17 September 2003]: The information in the following table shows the number of full time equivalent personal advisers working for the Connexions Service by region in the first years of operation.
  983W

  The number of full time equivalent personal advisers working for Connexions

  December 2001

  December 2002

  June 2003

  PAs

  Number of Partnerships

  PAs

  Number of Partnerships

  PAs

  Number of Partnerships

  England

  1,872.4

  15

  6,086.2

  44

  7,251.6

  47

  South East

  118.0

  1

  606.9

  5

  862.1

  6

  London

  252.2

  2

  841.7

  6

  910.3

  6

  East of England

  42.8

  1

  398.6

  5

  614.6

  6

  South West

  272.0

  2

  735.4

  6

  658.7

  6

  West Midlands

  328.1

  3

  784.3

  5

  1,009.5

  5

  East Midlands

  63.4

  1

  488.2

  5

  528.0

  5

  Yorkshire and Humber

  300.0

  2

  800.5

  4

  898.0

  4

  North West

  495.9

  3

  1,082.8

  5

  1,220.6

  5

  North East

  118.0

  0

  347.8

  3

  549.8

  4

  Notes:

  1. The figures include those staff directly employed by the Partnerships and those seconded to Connexions from local partner agencies.

  2. In addition to personal advisers, Partnerships also employ other delivery staff whose main role is customer contact in support of the personal adviser role, but who are not qualified to give the in depth advice and guidance expected from a personal adviser. In 2001 there were 438.7 full time equivalent other delivery staff in the 15 Partnerships rising to 2,206.8 in the 42 partnerships in 2002 and 2,456.0 at the end of June 2003.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by how much Connexions services are reducing their support, in terms of personal adviser time, for young people from(a) schools and (b) colleges. [130718]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 17 September 2003]: Connexions offers a service to all young people aged 13–19 differentiated on the basis of need. It is not reducing personal adviser time in schools or colleges. There have been significant year-on-year increases in funding since Connexions was introduced in 2001–02. In 2000–01, before the start of Connexions, Careers service and New Start budgets totalled £243 million; in 2001–02, the first year of Connexions, the total budget was £320 million. In 2002–03 this rose to £420 million and in the current year to £455 million.

  One service offered by Connexions is for career guidance to be available to all 13 to 19-year-olds. The Ofsted report "Connexions Partnerships: the first year 2001–2002" found that the implementation of the Connexions Service had maintained, restored and, in some instances, enhanced the provision of Careers Education and Guidance in schools and colleges.

  Education Clothing Grant
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the level of education clothing grant given by each local authority in England. [130416]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information you have requested is not collected by this Department.

  Foundation Degrees Forward
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a further progress statement on Foundation Degrees Forward; and what the planned publication date for its prospectus is. [129993]

  Alan Johnson
  Foundation Degree Forward (FDF) is in the process of being set up, as a network organisation, with its administrative centre located at the Lichfield Campus jointly owned by Staffordshire University and Tamworth and Lichfield College. Dr. Derek Longhurst has been appointed as the Executive Director. The FDF 984W
  Management Board will hold its first meeting on October 7 when it will consider a Strategic Plan for 2003–06 and a Business Plan and Operating Statement for 2003–04.

  Maintenance Grants
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students in sixth form colleges and other education institutions in Hull are eligible for maintenance grants; how many are receiving them; what steps he is taking to ensure that individual students receive such grants; if he will list those institutions whose students qualify; and if he will make a statement. [129532]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest information available shows that the number of 16 and 17 year olds eligible for Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) in Kingston upon Hull LEA at the end of 2000 was around 2,300. This is based on estimates of participation in full time education and the percentage of young people eligible for EMA based on income distribution. In 2002–03 1,960 students received weekly payments of EMA, of which 1,654 students received the maximum allowance.

  Local LEAs are responsible for ensuring young people are aware of EMA. In the pilots eligibility is governed by the local authority area in which the young person lives, so any school with a sixth form, sixth form college or FE college at which an EMA student enrols will "qualify" to operate EMA.

  EMA pilots are currently available in 56 LEA areas and the national scheme will be available from September 2004.

  Post-graduate Certificate in Education (Citizenship)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many places have been(a) taken up and (b) available for Post-graduate Certificate in Education Citizenship courses since their introduction; and if he will make a statement. [129894]

  Mr. Miliband
  Since 2001–02, when the citizenship PGCE course was introduced, 332 trainees have taken up places (147 in 2001–02 and 185 in 2002–03).
  985W
  The table which shows the number of entrants to training against the number of places for 2001–02 and 2002–03 in England only.

  Places

  Entrants

  2001–021

  —

  147

  2002–03

  200

  185

  2003–042

  250

  —

  1 In 2001–02, there was no separate allocation for citizenship places.

  2 The number of entrants to Initial Teacher Training in 2003–04 is not yet available.

  Source:

  TTA

  In addition to those trainees shown above, in 2002–03 14 trainees started the Graduate Teacher Programme (GTP) in citizenship.

  Safer Schools Partnership Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the Safer Schools Partnership Initiative. [130502]

  Mr. Miliband
  My Department, in partnership with the Home Office and Youth Justice Board, has commissioned an independent evaluation of the first year of the Safer School Partnerships (SSPs) scheme for police officers based in schools. The evaluation report is nearing completion.

  "Streets Ahead", the recently published joint inspectorate report on the Street Crime Initiative, included positive examples of SSPs, with case studies of good practice in London and Manchester. Lessons learned from the first SSPs will be reflected in future guidance and training material.

  School Budgets (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in(a) the Chesham and Amersham constituency and (b) Buckinghamshire have set deficit budgets for the academic year 2003–04. [129887]

  Mr. Miliband
  Figures for balances are collected at the end of each financial year. The latest complete figures are for March 2002, when 7 schools in the Chesham and Amersham constituency and 39 schools in Buckinghamshire as a whole, were in deficit.

  School Standards
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) Key Stage 2 pupils and (b) Key Stage 3 pupils reached the required standards in both literacy and numeracy in each year since 1997. [127902]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentages of pupils achieving the expected level in both English and Maths at(a) Key Stage 2 and (b) Key Stage 3 are shown in the following table for all years available since 1997.
  986W

  Percentage

  (a) Key Stage 2

  (b) Key Stage 3

  1997

  52

  —

  1998

  51

  —

  1999

  61

  —

  2000

  64

  55

  2001

  64

  56

  2002

  65

  57

  2003*

  66

  —

  *Provisional

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many(a) boys, (b) girls and (c) children from ethnic backgrounds have reached the required standards of (i) English and (ii) mathematics at Key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority; [127904]

  (2) how many and what percentage of (a) boys and (b) girls from ethnic minority backgrounds have reached the required standards of (i) English and (ii) maths at Key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [127924]

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

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) boys and (b) girls have reached the required standards of (i) English and (ii) mathematics at Key stages 1,2,3 and 4 in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [127922]

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

  The tables show, for each local education authority, the number of boys and girls in maintained schools who achieved the expected level in each year from 1997 to 2002.

  The figures shown are based on:
  Pupils achieving level 2 or above at Key Stage 1 in reading and in maths.
  Pupils achieving level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 in English and in maths.
  Pupils achieving level 5 or above at Key Stage 3 in English and in maths.
  Pupils achieving good grades (A*-C) at GCSE in English and in maths.

  Secondary Schools (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria will be applied by the adjudicator in relation to catchment areas for secondary schools in Buckinghamshire; and if he will make a statement. [130436]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Adjudicator is independent. In considering any objections he will look at them in the context of the law and guidance given in the Code of Practice on School Admissions, and take account of what is in the best interest of all pupils and parents in the area.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to assist Moslem students with finance, in the event of the
  987W
  student not wishing on religious grounds to take a loan requiring repayment of interest; and if he will make a statement. [129321]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government are committed to widening access to higher education. We are naturally concerned that some Muslim students from low income families may be missing out on the benefits of higher education because they may not wish to take out a student loan on religious grounds. Student loans are not commercial loans. To make sure that all borrowers pay back the same amount that they borrowed in real terms, the Government uprate the value of what is owed in line with the general rate of inflation.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills met representatives from the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS) on 8 July to discuss their concerns, and senior officials from my Department will hold further discussions with FOSIS representatives in the near future.

  Student Transport
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking in conjunction with the Learning and Skills Council to co-ordinate the transport requirements of individual students, with particular reference to those with(a) special needs and (b) specialist course requirements. [129984]

  Alan Johnson
  In 2001–02, we commissioned an extensive study by Steer Davis Cleave into transport support for students of 16–19 and in particular, those with disabilities and learning difficulties. In line with the recommendations from this, my Department has revised legislation, via Schedule 19 of the Education Act 2002, and made an additional £39 million of funding available to local education authorities (LEAs) and their partners for the three years from 2003–06. Now LEAs, Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs) and further education colleges are required to work together to produce, publish and deliver local policies to ensure that there are effective transport services and financial support in order that young people can access and complete their further education. These new transport arrangements are currently the subject of independent evaluation.

  This is in addition to the learner support fund, which is £36 million in 2003/04. This is paid to schools and colleges so that they can help students aged 16–19 to meet course related costs, which can include transport. The LSC also provides additional learning support to institutions to help with the extra costs a learner with special needs may require, e.g. for transport between sites and to other off-site activities for learners with mobility difficulties. And the LSC has provided support to education providers through revenue and capital funding to implement the Disability Discrimination Act.

  The Government have announced that from September 2004 education maintenance allowances will be available across England. These will pay a means tested allowance of up to £30 per week (plus bonuses) to young people to provide them with an incentive to stay in learning and to help them with the associated costs, including transport.
  988W
  Students 19 plus

  Learner support funds are the main source of financial support to help students of 19 and over in further education with costs associated with studying, including transport costs. They are allocated via the LSC and used flexibly by colleges to help students facing financial difficulties related to their learning. £96.5 million has been made available for students aged 19 plus for 2003/04.

  Each college is able to set its own policy on how it applies the funds and is required to give priority to students with disabilities, learning difficulties and other socially disadvantaged groups.

  University of Bournemouth
  Mr. Christopher Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what discussions he has had on the list of invitees to the meeting which he is addressing at the University of Bournemouth in October; [131053]

  (2) if he will attend a meeting with students to discuss top-up fees when he visits the University of Bournemouth in October; [131054]

  (3) if he will publish the list of invitees to the meeting which he proposes to address at the University of Bournemouth in October. [131055]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been invited to visit Bournemouth university which I intend to do in October. The university is responsible for the programme and arrangements.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burma
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received about the circumstances of Aung San Suu Kyi and those members and supporters of the National League for Democracy imprisoned after the attack on 30 May on Aung San Suu Kyi's motorcade. [130638]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is unacceptable that Aung San Suu Kyi and other members and supporters of the National League for Democracy (NLD) should ever have been detained by the Burmese regime. As I recently told the Burmese Ambassador to the UK, we hold the Burmese military regime responsible for the wellbeing of Aung San Suu Kyi and we will continue to push for her release and other NLD members and supporters detained since 30 May.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice the Government has issued to British American Tobacco on the future of its cigarette factory in Burma owned jointly with the Burmese Government. [130630]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government do not encourage UK companies to trade or invest in Burma while the regime continues to suppress the basic human rights of its people. On 2 July I asked British American Tobacco to withdraw their investment from Burma. They are currently considering this request.
  989W
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what progress has been made to have Burma placed on the UN Security Council agenda; and if he will table proposals for targeted sanctions against Burma through the UK's position as chair of the UNSC; [130633]

  (2) what proposals the Government plans to make to the UN Security Council regarding the political, economic and humanitarian crisis in Burma. [130639]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government fully supports the efforts of the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy to Burma and the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma to help bring about national reconciliation, respect for human lights and democracy in Burma. This includes raising Burma in the various fora of the UN as and when appropriate.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the governments of the ASEAN nations on formulating a co-ordinated policy to influence the Burmese Government towards democracy and improved human rights. [130634]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We take advantage of our regular bilateral and multilateral contacts with all ASEAN nations to discuss Burma related issues, most recently on 23–24 July at the ASEM Foreign Ministers' Meeting. We welcome the joint Asian and EU Foreign Ministers statement on 24 July calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and democracy in Burma which sent a strong message of EU-Asian unity to the regime. We will remain in regular consultation with ASEAN Governments in the build up to the ASEAN Summit on 7–8 October. We believe that the ASEAN nations have an important role to play in encouraging substantive change in Burma.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what results have followed his decision in June to write to tour operators to ask them not to organise tourism in Burma. [130636]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  By writing to the Association of British Travel Agents and individual tour operators we have drawn attention to the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy continue not to encourage tourists to visit Burma in the present circumstances. At least one UK tour operator has since said it will remove Burma from its 2004 Brochure and others are considering whether to withdraw.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held about the closure of the universities in Burma following 30 May. [130637]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK made numerous representations to the Burmese authorities concerning the closure of universities after 30 May. The universities re-opened on 16 June.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what impact the publication of the road map to democracy and the national convention recently published by the Burmese Prime Minister has had on the Government's advice to British businesses on trading with and investing in Burma. [130640]
  990W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in this House on 25 June, the British Government do not encourage trade with or investment in Burma, while the regime continues to suppress the basic human rights of its people, We offer no support for companies wishing to trade with Burma or for those who want to invest there. Representatives of British companies or their subsidiaries that inquire about the prospects either for trade with or investment in Burma are informed of this policy. The publication of the Burmese road map to democracy does not change this policy. We would want to see substantive dialogue with democratic groups leading to national reconciliation in Burma before considering any change to Government advice.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Burma about the road map to democracy; and if he will make a statement. [130641]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have had no discussions with the Burmese regime about its so called road map to democracy. I call on the Burmese authorities to release Aung San Suu Kyi and other members of the National League for Democracy (NLD) immediately and to enter into a substantive and meaningful political dialogue with them.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had about the exclusion of the National League for Democracy from the recently announced Burmese national convention. [130642]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK is active within the EU, UN and with our Asian partners to persuade the Burmese military regime to enter into substantive dialogue with democratic and ethnic minority leaders. Any meaningful democratic process in Burma must include the National League for Democracy.

  Conflict Prevention Pools
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he expects the independent evaluation of the Global Conflict Prevention Pool to be complete; [130523]

  (2) when he expects the independent evaluation of the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool to be complete. [130524]

  Mr. Rammell
  The joint external evaluation of the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool and the Global Conflict Prevention Pool began in June 2003. The results will inform the Spending Review 2004 process and so the aim is for the evaluation to be completed by early 2004.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many consultancies were commissioned by his Department in the last two years for which figures are available; and what the cost of those contracts was. [130894]

  Mr. Rammell
  The total number of consultancies could be established only at disproportionate cost. Annual expenditure on external consultants is published in the Department's Annual Reports (copies of which are in the Library of the House). It amounted to
  991W
  £17.9 million in 2000–01 and £20.1 million in 2001–02. The vast majority of this expenditure was associated with our major Information Communication Technology and Estate construction programmes.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on smuggling arms to rebel forces within the Congo from(a) Rwanda, (b) Angola and (c) Uganda. [130658]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 September 2003]: We condemn the supply of arms to militia groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and continue to call for an end to all such support. UN Security Council Resolution 1493 (2003) introduced an arms embargo on eastern DRC and on armed groups not party to the main power-sharing agreement (signed in Pretoria in December 2002). The UN Mission in the DRC (MONUC) are mandated by the same resolution to report regularly to the Security Council on information concerning arms supplies.

  EU Accession States (Work Permits)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether residents of countries which join the European Union will have immediate permission to work in the United Kingdom with effect from the date of those countries joining the Union; and if he will make a statement. [129773]

  Mr. MacShane
  The EU (Accessions) Bill provides a power to grant nationals of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia the same rights to work in the UK from 1 May 2004 as are enjoyed by nationals of the states in the European Economic Area. The Accession Treaty automatically grants nationals of Cyprus and Malta these rights.

  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's written statement of 16 December 2002, Official Report, columns 537–51WS, on EU enlargement and free movement of workers, and to the EU (Accessions) Bill and its Explanatory Notes—both available on the FCO website under 'enlarging the EU'—http://www.fco.gov.uk.

  Israel
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government regarding the security barrier. [130378]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary both made clear our concerns over the route and likely impact of the "security fence" to Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, when he visited London on 14 July. Foreign Office officials have also made representations through the Israeli embassy.

  The fence should not be built within occupied territory. We deplore this seizure of Palestinian land, isolation of Palestinian villages and the creation of a further physical obstacle to the two-State solution.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Questions directed to him remain unanswered. [130758]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department has 49 Parliamentary Questions unanswered as of 17 September, only one of which is more than 7 working days old, which will be answered shortly.

  Serbia and Montenegro
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring is occurring of attacks on religious minorities in(a) Serbia and (b) Montenegro. [130572]

  Mr. MacShane
  The implementation of the Charter on Human and Minority Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Serbia and Montenegro, including the protection and promotion of national minorities (whether religious, ethnic or otherwise), is closely monitored by the Organisation for Security and Co operation in Europe (OSCE) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR). Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) also monitor observance of human rights in Serbia and Montenegro and include Amnesty International, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (HCHRS) and Human Rights Watch.

  Serbia and Montenegro is also subject to a number of the Council of Europe's human rights monitoring mechanisms, including those provided for under the Framework Convention on National Minorities which was ratified by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro) on 11 May 2001.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport(Mr. Tony McNulty)
  London Transport's (LT) expenditure on external consultancy in relation to the Public Private Partnership (PPP) for the modernisation of London Underground (LU) has been regularly reported to the House at six-monthly intervals since 13 January 1999.

  LT's liabilities transferred to Transport for London (TfL) on 15 July 2003, so some residual final costs are being met by London Underground (LU) in TfL's ownership. The total consultancy costs concerned, from 20 March 1998 (the date of the Government's announcement of the PPP) up to the end of August 2003, is £103.16 million. The potential final cost is £103.5 million. Once all related expenditure has been paid I will report the final costs to the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sanctions
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(Mr. Bill Rammell)
  As of today's date, the United Kingdom implements mandatory UN sanctions, imposed by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in relation to Al Qa'ida and the Taliban, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Iraq, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Somalia. UN sanctions in relation to Angola (UNITA) and Libya were lifted on 9 December 2002 and 12 September 2003 respectively. The full trade embargo and all-encompassing asset freeze in relation to Iraq have been lifted. But an arms embargo remains and UNSCR 1483(2003) placed a ban on trade in stolen cultural property and requests Member States to freeze and transfer certain Iraqi assets to the Development Fund for Iraq. The United Kingdom implements, in addition, sanctions imposed by the European Union in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burma, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (former President Milosevic and the persons associated with him continue to represent a threat to the consolidation of democracy in the area of the former Republic of Yugoslavia), Libya, Sudan and Zimbabwe. In accordance with a decision of the OSCE, the United Kingdom implements arms embargoes on Armenia and Azerbaijan. The UK has imposed a unilateral arms embargo adopted by national legislation on Iran and a ban in relation to the sale of certain equipment to the armed forces of either side on the island of Cyprus. A list of sanctions regimes 58WS
  implemented by the UK is in the Library of the House. Annexed to this is a summary of additional UK restrictions on the export of strategic goods. These documents are also available on the FCO website at http://www.fco.gov.uk/sanctions and are updated each time there are changes to sanctions regimes implemented by the UK, or to UK restrictions on the export of strategic goods.

  British Terrorist Victims
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(Mr. Jack Straw)
  Last week we remembered the victims of the 11 September terrorist attacks, two years ago. In a few weeks, we shall be marking the first anniversary of the Bali bombings. The Government responded to these tragic events with practical support for the families of the victims beyond the consular assistance we would normally provide following the death or injury of British nationals abroad. We did so because of the exceptional nature of terrorism, in which individuals are random victims of attacks directed at society as a whole. I am announcing today a package of measures designed to support the families of victims of future terrorist attacks abroad, which is based closely on what was provided for the families of victims of 11 September and Bali.

  Those measures are:
  Return economy airfares to the airport nearest the site of the incident for two members of the victim's family.
  Accommodation for three to five nights.
  Travel insurance as appropriate and where available.
  Local Travel including transfers from airport to local hotel.
  Repatriation of bodies or remains.
  Immediate medical expenses of those killed or injured.
  Medical evacuation of those killed or injured to the nearest hospital.
  Return luggage costs of those killed or injured.

  The provision of the exact package, and the details of the assistance offered to the families will, of course, depend on the particular circumstances, including whether any of the costs are already covered by existing insurance policies. As a matter of course, we provide consular advice and support, both in London and at the site of the incident. We also endeavour to arrange insurance cover for family members where it would not otherwise be available.

  None of these measures can ever take away the pain and suffering which families will experience in these most horrendous of circumstances, but we sincerely hope they will at least remove some of the practical and administrative burdens from them when trying to cope with the trauma of the incident.

  The question of what constitutes an act of terrorism remains a difficult one. In the case of 11 September, Bali and the compound bombings in Riyadh in May of this year, we were all in no doubt that we were dealing with acts of terrorism. Where there is doubt as to whether a violent death abroad is the result of an act of terrorism, we will consider the circumstances carefully and sympathetically. In essence, this package of measures is designed to assist the families of

  59WS
  members of the travelling and expatriate British public, who are inadvertently caught up in a terrorist incident; and where they are not covered by ordinary insurance policies.

  FCO/TUC International Advisory Council
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(Mr. Jack Straw)
  The FCO has been working to strengthen co-operation with British unions on issues of mutual interest overseas As economic decisions are increasingly made in a global context, so British trade unions are more involved with international organisations and counterparts overseas. British trade unions have long played a wider international role in helping promote, among other things, democracy and human rights.

  To identify areas of concern and to facilitate discussion, the General Secretary of the TUC and I have agreed to set up an FCO/TUC international advisory council This Council will be led from the Foreign Office side by the Minister for Europe and will include participants from both the FCO and the trade union movement.

  To brief interested parties on this expanded co-operation, the FCO and TUC agreed to produce a leaflet setting down in practical terms how British unions and the FCO are working together. This leaflet was circulated to delegates at the TUC General Congress last week. Copies of the leaflet, which have been placed in the Library of the House, will also be circulated to our embassies abroad and will be available on the FCO website http://www.fco.gov.uk/.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Rural Payments Agency
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality(Alun Michael)
  The 2002–03 Annual Report and Accounts for the Rural Payments Agency will be laid today and copies will be place in the Libraries of both Houses.

HEALTH

  Dentistry
  The Minister of State, Department of Health(Ms Rosie Winterton)
  Subject to the will of Parliament, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will give primary care trusts new duties for commissioning local national health service dental services. Primary care trusts will have a duty to secure the provision of primary dental services either through contracts with individual practices or by providing services themselves. With these new responsibilities, the £1.2 billion currently held centrally for funding dental services will pass to primary care trusts.

  Until then, we will continue to work with the NHS and the dental profession to support NHS dentistry and to reform it to meet local needs. I am today announcing additional funding of £65.2 million to support change and help improve access, quality and
  60WS
  choice for patients. The funding will be targeted at those primary care trusts where access is a real problem and will be on top of the £1.2 billion which is currently held centrally and which will in time go to primary care trusts.

  The £65.2 million will be used as follows:
  £35 million to enable primary care trusts to improve access, choice and quality for patients;
  £30 million for information technology to integrate dentistry within the national information technology programme;
  £200,000 to develop dental leadership skills within strategic health authorities and primary care trusts to support them with the dental change agenda.

  This funding comes on top of the £9 million announced last month for the NHS support team that has been set up to work with those areas where it is hardest to find an NHS dentist and a further £1 million to help primary care trusts, local dental committees and dentists to prepare for the change in the way dental services are commissioned.

  There are many examples of excellent NHS dental services and we want to reward NHS dentists and make practice in the NHS an attractive option. The programme of reform we are now embarked on will enable the NHS, dentists and patients to influence local services in the future.

  As well as the changes flowing from the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, we have also asked Harry Cayton, the director for patient experience and public involvement at the Department, to undertake a review of patient charges for NHS dentistry. This review involves patient groups and other stakeholders and will be reporting to Ministers by April 2004.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Opportunity for All
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Mr. Andrew Smith)
  Today I am publishing Opportunity for all—Fifth Annual Report 2003 (CM 5956). The report sets out our strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion, and reports on the indicators used to monitor progress. Copies have been placed in the Library, and are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office. A copy of the summary is being sent to all hon. Members.

  Older Workers
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Mr. Andrew Smith)
  In the Government's consultation report "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement", December 2002, (CM 5677) I announced plans to introduce progressively a new package of more intensive back-to-work help for people aged 50 and over. Today I am pleased to announce further details about two elements of this work.

  The sites for the pilot study to trial mandating the participation of people aged 50 to 59 who have been claiming JSA for 18 months in the New Deal 25 plus Intensive Activity Period, on the same basis as

  61WS
  currently exists for claimants aged 25–49, have been agreed and are listed below. 11 of the pilots will commence in April 2004, and three will commence in October 2004. The areas represent a mix of geographical and labour market areas and all will have fully integrated Jobcentre Plus offices. In addition, seven of the sites are also taking part in the Pathways to Work pilots for people on Incapacity Benefits.

  The pilots will be evaluated comprehensively by independent qualitative and quantitative research and this will include the use of random assignment.

  Pilot sites for a mandatory New Deal 25 plus Intensive Activity Period for people aged 50 to 59—Launch April 2004:

  Bridgend (1)

  Buckingham & Oxfordshire

  Calderdale & Kirklees

  Coventry & Warwickshire

  East Lancashire (1)

  Essex (1)

  Hampshire

  Leicester

  Shropshire

  Somerset (1)

  Suffolk

  Pilot sites for a mandatory New Deal 25 plus Intensive Activity Period for people aged 50 to 59—Launch October 2004:

  Derbyshire (1)

  Gateshead & South Tyneside (1)

  Renfrewshire, Inverclyde, Argyll and Bute. (1)

  Note:

  (1) Also participating in the Pathways to Work pilots.

  A national tendering exercise will be launched today on the Jobcentre Plus website http:// www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/, inviting bids from private and voluntary sector organisations to extend information about back-to-work help and local job and volunteering opportunities to help improve the employment prospects of jobless people aged 50 and over.

  The bids will be invited in areas with higher numbers of people aged over 50 claiming benefits, listed below. Successful bidders will begin work from April 2004, and contracts will be let for up to two years. The pilots will gather good practice information on the most effective ways of raising awareness about the availability of back to work help to people not currently in contact with Jobcentre Plus.

  Proposed Jobcentre Plus districts for private and voluntary sector bids to raise awareness about the back to work help available through:

  Jobcentre Plus

  Lanarkshire

  Liverpool

  Leeds

  Wigan

  City of Sunderland

  Bradford

  62WS

  Fife

  Staffordshire

  Dudley and Sandwell

  Newcastle and North Tyne

  Eastern Valleys

  Cardiff and Vale

DEFENCE

  Military Low-Flying System
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The existing Night Low Flying System (NLFS) will remain unchanged in principle, but some adjustments are being made to its structure and management to improve the efficiency of the system and reflect an increasing requirement for helicopters to be able to train at night.

  The NLFS is divided into two by a line from Swansea in the west to Colchester in the east. The southern area is allocated to rotary wing aircraft and the northern area to fixed wing aircraft, with small exceptions to account for locations where rotary wing aircraft are based in the fixed wing region and vice-versa. This basis remains unchanged but the area available to rotary-wing aircraft will be increased and the system made more flexible by the introduction of sectors that may now be allocated to either fixed wing or rotary aircraft. In addition, we are introducing some management changes to make the procedures that units use to book in to the system more efficient.

  The Government understand that military low flying training is disturbing, and can reassure the House that there is not expected to be a significant impact for those on the ground as a result of these changes. The existing basis of the NLFS will remain, and for most of the country there will be no change to the structure of the system. Where change is being introduced, the impact is generally expected to be limited to the possibility that those on the ground may witness different aircraft types than may currently be the case, and will be small in scale. We have considered the requirement for a sustainability review and recognise that some parts of the changes may lead to such a requirement, although, as stated, the overall impact is likely to be small. Where necessary I can confirm that more detailed work may be carried out. Detailed environmental impact and sustainability studies are being carried out in respect of AH 64, which is likely to be one of the major users of the revised NLFS.

  Finally, night flying is essential if our aircrews are going to meet the demands that are placed upon them. These changes will assist with these demands.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Energy Credit Facility Agreement
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry(Ms Hewitt)
  On 7 March,Official Report,column 89WS, I informed the House that British Energy had repaid to my Department all outstanding amounts under the credit facility. On a contingency basis I decided, with the

  63WS
  company's agreement, to continue the facility, with the maximum amount available being reduced from £650 million to £200 million.

  British Energy has subsequently utilised the facility in August. As the House was in recess at the time the drawing was made, my Department wrote to the Chairs of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Trade and Industry Committee to inform them of the fact. At the beginning of September, British Energy's outstanding drawdown on the facility was £13.1 million.

  The stringent controls governing drawings on the facility by British Energy remain in place. As with the company's previous drawings, we expect further drawings to be repaid in full, including interest, as soon as the company is in a position to do so. British Energy's obligations under the credit facility agreement are secured by charges over the British Energy Group's assets. This security is in the nature of a senior charge, which would take priority over the claims of other creditors, should the company become insolvent.

  British Energy continues to work on implementing its restructuring plan. It announced on 11 September that it had agreed the sale of its stake in its US joint venture, Amergen, subject to certain regulatory and other conditions. But there remain significant milestones ahead. Successful implementation of the restructuring plan will require a number of further conditions to be met, including satisfactory formal commitments from creditors to support the plan, completion of the Amergen sale and receipt of state aids approval from the European Commission. I will also need to be satisfied that implementation of the restructuring will lead to a viable restructured entity that will not be dependent on Government support in the long term. If these conditions cannot be met, the Government remain well prepared for administration.

TREASURY

  HM Treasury Review
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury(Mr. Paul Boateng)
  Cash Ratio Deposits are non-interest bearing assets deposited with the Bank of England by banks and building societies. They are used by the Bank to finance its unremunerated activities, in particular its sterling liquidity operations and its efforts to secure price stability and the stability of the financial system in general, from which these institutions are key beneficiaries. The Cash Ratio Deposit Scheme was placed on a statutory basis when the Bank of England Act became law in 1998. In February 2003, the Paymaster General announced by written statement a review of the operation of the statutory scheme in its first five years.
  64WS
  The review has reached the following conclusions. The cash ratio deposit scheme continues to be a suitable method of funding the Bank of England's monetary policy, financial stability and sterling liquidity operations. The definition of eligible liabilities, from which deposits are calculated, should not be brought into line with the definition of deposits used by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) as a basis for calculating the fees it collects from deposit taking institutions. This is because the Cash Ratio Deposit scheme is aimed at sterling deposit taking institutions, whereas the FSA's regulatory activity, and its definition of deposits, also covers foreign exchange deposits. The cash ratio for calculating deposits should remain at 0.15 per cent. The Government will keep the ratio under review. The minimum threshold for making deposits should be raised to £500 million, freeing 18 institutions from the scheme and benefiting all remaining contributing institutions by reducing the level of their deposits by £150,000 each. The Bank of England should consider ways in which the transparency of the scheme could be enhanced, for instance by publishing a more detailed breakdown of expenditure by function. The Government will continue to monitor the effect of the cash ratio deposit scheme under review and will conduct a further formal review at the latest in five years' time.

  The proposal to raise the minimum threshold for making deposits would require a change to secondary legislation under the Bank of England Act 1998. HM Treasury is therefore consulting publicly about this change and inviting views on the other proposals of the review.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government Finance
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire(Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  The December 2001 White Paper "Strong Local Leadership, Quality Public Services" (CM 5237) included a commitment to work with local government with the aim of introducing a safety valve grant in 2004–05. The grant will be available to authorities with high levels of council tax and low unit costs, but which do not benefit from the new grant formulae.

  The concept behind the safety valve mechanism was that there might be a small number of authorities whose circumstances do not fit adequately into national funding formulae and as a result experience severe underfunding.

  We have been unable to find any authorities that qualify for a safety valve grant. After taking technical advice from local government, which pointed strongly against a mechanism we no longer intend to introduce a safety valve grant.

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

Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
Lord Moynihanasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will provide a progress report on London's bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, London 2012 was incorporated on 19th August and will now take the bid forward. The chairman of London 2012, Barbara Cassani, has announced the appointment of an impressive board. including the noble Lord, Lord Coe. Key executives have also been appointed, including a chief operating officer and a director of marketing. London 2012 is also making good progress on developing the technical bid for submission to the IOC next year.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer and echo his remarks about my noble friend Lord Coe, with whom I leave tomorrow for Havana to review its 201:2 bid and seek support for London 2012 if Havana does not succeed.
In commending the work of our bid committee in exceptionally difficult circumstances, does the Minister recognise that, despite the 1997 Labour manifesto commitment to back a British bid, it is directly because of government prevarication until May this year that there is now widespread concern about progress with our bid? We have a part-time chairman, no chief executive, no website, no logo, no discussions with the individual Olympic and paralympic governing bodies of sport and a delay in Crossrail until 2013. Does he recognise that we face a deadline of 15th January to hand the IOC details of plans for venues, transport and security?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord well in Havana and hope that he goes in a rather more cheerful spirit than he is attending here today. Of course we are aware that we have to hit the 15th January target date, and we intend to do so. As the noble Lord knows, the chairman made very clear to the Select Committee in another place earlier this week her confidence in the way in which matters were coming along.
1048
I emphasise that arrangements have been made for financial support of the bid. It is quite clear that we now have a very strong board to promote it and I have not the slightest doubt that, with the kind of support that I know we will offer, we will make rapid progress.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, on the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Coe, as vice-chairman of the bid, perhaps it will now run a bit faster than it would otherwise have done.
I wish to impress on my noble friend the importance of improving transport links to the east of London. Mrs Cassani has rightly said that we are starting from behind, especially Paris. One thing that Paris will be able to demonstrate is excellent transport links to its Olympic village. I hope that the Government will be able to do something to accelerate the Crossrail proposal so that it does not finish the year after the games are over.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think that the House will recognise that Paris was bound to start ahead. After all, it submitted a prior bid, so has had practice in this art form. It is true that we are starting some way behind, but we intend to catch up.
On the transport links, my noble friend will know that proposals with regard to the siting of the games in east London greatly depend on the transport infrastructure for the area, and that certain features are already in place, not least the Eurostar extension and the development of Stratford as a major huh for international rail travel. The bid will not be dependent upon Crossrail for the success of transport arrangements. However, he is right: Crossrail would be an advantage.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, is the Minister considering whether the derelict Dome might he a venue for the Olympic bid?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Dome is on the wrong side of the Thames in relation to the proposed bid for east London, so I do not think that it enters into the equation. The other aspect that the noble Lord will recognise is that the strength of the bid will lie in the fact that we have the resources promised and allocated for the development of an Olympic village with new state of the art stadiums. We will not be dependent upon any structure except those in construction.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Minister may be interested to know that the Dome is part of the plan. Will the Government guarantee that the utmost support will continue until the end of the bidding process in July 2005? Will they also ensure that our general sporting infrastructure in the wake of a successful bid will be integrated with that process of

1049
construction and will not simply mean a few stadiums in east London that may not have a long-term future? Improvement in the whole of Britain's sporting structure should be part of the games, should we win the bid.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I thought that the purport of his question was to suggest that the Dome should be the centrepiece of the development of the bid, which it clearly is not. We intend to develop the Olympic village in east London. As he rightly says, it has to relate to the development of sporting facilities across the range. The great advantage of the bid and, when we are successful, the great advantage of the development, is that an area that has sadly and badly needed it for a long time will get the investment to which the noble Lord referred—across a whole range of sporting opportunities.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be a sad day if my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who brings such expertise and knowledge to this House, were excluded from this place as a result of the machinations of government?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have not the slightest doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will find a way to contribute to the venture, to which I know he is committed, irrespective of any position that he holds.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, given the new transport link between Stratford and Paris, which will open in 2008, and to which my noble friend referred, have the Government considered making a joint bid with the French authorities to demonstrate cross-channel co-operation once more?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, every opportunity to co-operate with the French is seized eagerly, save in one obvious respect: my noble friend may have noticed that Paris is one of our chief competitors.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it was reported in the press that, if successful, the bid will cost council tax payers in Greater London £25 a year for 20 years. Is that speculation, rumour, spin or fact?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the projected figure for London council tax payers, to which I can attest with accuracy, is 37 pence a week over that period. The mayor has promised that those funds will be supplementary to government investment in the games. The figure reflects the fact that, although the whole country will benefit from a successful bid, it is primarily London and Londoners who will receive the direct benefits of the huge investment necessary.

Iraq: Water and Electricity Supplies
11.15 a.m.
Lord Dubsasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect full electricity and water supplies to be available in Baghdad and Basra.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Coalition Provisional Authority aims to bring electricity generation up to pre-conflict levels by the end of this month. Water supply is improving with the repair of facilities and installation of emergency generators at pumping stations. The provision of full electricity and water supplies will require significant additional investment in the medium to long term. The coalition is also improving security to prevent sabotage and theft of public utility infrastructure.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her Answer. Does she agree that it is essential that the quality of life for the people of Iraq should quickly represent an improvement on what it was under Saddam Hussein?
Perhaps she will say more about the sewerage system, given that it is affected by electricity supplies. Will she comment on the latest information that I have been able to find to the effect that, fairly recently, the sewerage system in Baghdad was operating at 17 per cent of its normal capacity? When can we expect a significant improvement for the people of Iraq in those essential services?
Baroness Amos: My Lords. I agree fully with my noble friend that it is important that we improve the quality of life for the people of Iraq, particularly in the south, where people were robbed over many years of investment in essential infrastructure.
I cannot endorse the percentage given by my noble friend with respect to the sewerage system. I shall write to him on that point. Emergency work is in hand to repair the Baghdad sewerage system. The CPA and the UN have each allocated 10 million dollars for the clean-up. My noble friend will know that water supplies more generally have been disrupted by sabotage and looting.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that news organisations sending journalists to Iraq must now pay more for their insurance than they did at the height of the conflict? Is that not a barometer of how unstable things are in Iraq? Surely we will not see real improvements in services until Iraq is more secure. What are the Government doing to persuade the Americans to enable the international community to play a larger part in Iraq so that security will be improved?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, noble Lords will know that the security situation remains extremely fragile. We are doing all that we can to improve it. It is a combination of criminal activity with the involvement of terrorist elements.

1051
With respect to the wider involvement of the international community, the noble Baroness will be aware that other nations are already involved with the coalition in Iraq. I think that there are some 30 nations, but I shall happily write to the noble Baroness with the details. We are engaged in discussions in the Security Council for a further UN Security Council resolution, which, we hope, will mean that a more international force can come into play in Iraq.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, a close relation of my wife has been in Baghdad with the World Health Organisation. He had telephoned and e-mailed me regularly until he was evacuated temporarily to Amman because of the security situation. The last report that I received from him, about 10 days ago, was that electricity supplies in Baghdad are on for the general population for only about two hours a day, despite the fact that it has been an exceptionally hot summer. In the light of that information, how does the noble Baroness really think that we will get electricity—and, therefore, water and sewerage systems—working in the time-scale that I thought she indicated in her Answer?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is true that in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq there have been times when electricity supplies have operated for only three or four hours per day. Noble Lords can imagine how much electricity cable there is in a country the size of Iraq: the opportunity for sabotage is enormous. When infrastructure that has been starved of investment is repaired or improved, there is often sabotage on the cables overnight. Clearly, the security situation must improve, but we must also deal with overnight sabotage.
With respect to electricity more generally, we are planning to increase the supply of electricity by the end of September. Last week, a note from my department was placed in the Libraries of both Houses giving an update on the situation as regards electricity, water, food and health. The note will be updated on a regular basis, so that noble Lords are kept informed of any change.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether these two cities had full electricity, water and sewage services before the recent conflict?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the situation in Baghdad was different from that in Basra; for example, vital infrastructure in Basra had been starved of investment. While there was access to services in Basra, it was not available at the full levels found in Baghdad. We have been trying, particularly in the south, not only to bring services back to pre-conflict levels but also to improve on that. When I was in Iraq I saw the terrible state of some water treatment plants, for example. As I said,
1052
we are not only trying to bring those services back to pre-war levels; we are also trying to raise their availability beyond those levels.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, have we managed to halt the movement and export of copper scrap in the UK area of operations?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am unable to answer the noble Earl's question. I am aware that, immediately after the conflict, a great deal of copper scrap was leaving the country as a result of criminal activity. I know that we have made some improvement in the situation, but I do not know the extent to which we have been able to halt such activity. I shall therefore write to the noble Earl.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we are substantially over time.

Wind Turbines
11.23 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is still their intention that 10 per cent of the energy needed in England and Wales should be generated by wind turbines by the year 2010.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government have not set a specific target for wind energy. They remain committed to the target of obtaining 10 per cent of the UK's electricity from all renewable sources eligible for the renewables obligation by 2010. Wind energy, from both on and offshore installations, is likely to be the largest contributor.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. While renewable sources should be exploited so far as is practicable, might not the Government have to create veritable forests of windmills, mostly around our coasts, if they continue with this intention?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I indicated in my initial reply, it is certainly the case that we are looking to wind energy to provide a substantial proportion of the 10 per cent target. We expect the majority of intensive wind farms to be on the coast, which raises important issues that this House will recognise. The Government are confident that, first, we have in place both the commitment to hit 10 per cent, and, secondly, a strategy which will ensure that we do.
Earl Peel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people in this country are becoming increasingly concerned at the encroachment of wind farms into some of the most sensitive parts of the British Isles? Could the Minister give a guarantee that at least areas

1053
of outstanding natural beauty and national parks will be preserved from these white aliens? Otherwise, what is the purpose of such designations?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I recognise the point made by the noble Earl. We certainly need to give careful attention to planning permission with regard to wind farms. In the wrong place, they can obviously detract from the beauty of an area. Clearly, national parks will need special protection. As I indicated in my earlier reply, we are anticipating that the major concentration of wind farms will be a considerable distance from any national parks.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that even if the objectives for wind power were achieved, it would still be difficult to meet the emission reduction target of 2010 and even more difficult thereafter because of the withdrawal of nuclear power? In those circumstances, should not the Government mobilise other means of carbon reduction more effectively? For example, should more support he given to combined heat and power (CHP), which is presently in difficulty, including micro-CHP, in which I declare an interest, to tidal power, to bio-mass in its various forms, to clean coal technology processes, including carbon extraction, and to the recovery of methane from coal mines, all of which could make a big contribution in the future to carbon reduction?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House well recognises the expertise of the noble Lord in this area. I am grateful for his contribution. We recognise that the target for reduction of CO2 emissions is difficult to hit. The 10 per cent target is challenging for this form of energy. He is right. We need to invest in many other forms of energy generation in order to hit the targets. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are already investing in a number of these developments; namely, wind and wave power, and clean coal technologies, to which he referred in particular. They all play their part in hitting a target to which we are committed.
A noble Lord: My Lords, with regard to the potential of tidal—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross- Benchers.
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, my question is about the intermittency of wind, which does not matter very much when the total contribution of wind to the national energy supply is at the level of a few per cent. When the wind does not blow, the shortfall can be readily accommodated by the rest of the system. At higher levels, it is a different story. There must be standby capacity that can come in when the wind does not blow. That changes both the cash and the carbon economics of wind power significantly. Can the Minister explain how this is taken into account in the Government's policy?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord has identified a key point. It is clearly the case, given the obvious intermittent quality of wind production, that it will be necessary for proper research and investment into storage techniques to ensure that we have sufficient capacity to meet those occasions when immediate on-stream electricity is not so readily available.
The noble Lord will also recognise that when we hit our targets this form of technology will still be playing a small part of the overall provision of energy in this country.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that those who criticise wind energy are simply tilting at windmills?
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether a public inquiry is held on every occasion when wind turbines are proposed in an area?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, not on every occasion, but certainly on all those occasions when it is clear that planning requirements ensure that that should be the case. That would apply to areas of outstanding natural beauty.
We are reviewing issues with regard to planning laws in relation to these developments. Obviously planning will play a major part in the consents required for such projects. However, as I indicated earlier, it is already the case that major projects for the future seem to be a considerable distance away from some of the more sensitive areas to which noble Lords have alluded.

Docklands Arms Fair: Arrests
11.30 a.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hylton regrets that he cannot be present this morning. On his behalf, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Government the following Question:
The Question was as follows:
To ask her Majesty's Government whether arrests were made at the arms fair in Docklands under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or under other terrorism provisions; if so, how many persons were arrested and why; and how many were charged.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, no arrests were made under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. For clarification, Section 44 of the Terrorism Act is a stop and search power, not an arrest power. Two individuals were arrested under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act on 8th September, the eve of the arms exhibition. They were subsequently released from the Terrorism Act provisions.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will be grateful for that reply. He has asked me to ask the Minister whether the use of the Section 44 stop

1055
and search powers were specifically authorised by the Home Office, or was there a blanket authorisation for London over that period. Does not the Minister regard the use of such powers on peaceful demonstrators a serious erosion of civil rights?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I explained, no arrests were made under Section 44. Two individuals were arrested under Section 41. I know that the difference between the two sections has caused difficulties in the past. As regards authorisation, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs is responsible for designation, but operational issues are of course a matter for the Metropolitan Police.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, is the Secretary of State responsible for authorisation? If such an authorisation was given to the police, did it apply to the whole of London or only Docklands, and is it still in force?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, any complaint alleging misuse of police powers will be investigated by the Metropolitan Police. There is a procedure under the Terrorism Act that allows an individual to request reasons. The Home Secretary has asked for a reply in relation to those matters.
The role of the Secretary of State is to confirm whether it is appropriate for Section 44 powers to be put in place. The Government's position is that those powers should be applied correctly during police operations in strict compliance with the legislation; that is, for counter-terrorism purposes only.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, by its very nature, the defence exhibition was vulnerable to terrorist attack?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am sorry. I did not hear the last part of the question put to me by the noble Earl., Lord Attlee. Would he be kind enough to repeat it?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, by its very nature, the exhibition was vulnerable to terrorist attack and that therefore precautions should have been taken?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Earl that it is absolutely critical to take precautions in those circumstances. We believe that appropriate action was taken in order to keep safe all those who visited the site.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I did not quite understand the reply of the noble Baroness to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. His question was whether the powers used required the authorisation of the Secretary of State. If so, was that authorisation supplied and over how wide an area?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, all Section 44 applications are scrutinised. If there were any indication that a police force intended to use those powers in a way not compliant with the legislation, the Home Secretary would not confirm their use. The situation was that the powers were used properly.
I have tried to explain a number of times that there was no use of Section 44 on that occasion and that the arrests took place under Section 41. If it helps, I shall be happy to describe the difference between the two sections because I know that this matter seems to be causing a little confusion. However, I notice that noble Lords do not want me to do that. I am more than content.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain why counter-terrorism legislation was used rather than the wider public order legislation that is available in all cases?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, what is absolutely important is that appropriate action was taken to keep London safe. Noble Lords will know that since 1998 a number of incidents have taken place right across London. It is right that there should be reviews of whether the continuance of the relevant actions is proper, and those have taken place.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem with Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, under which the arrests were made, is that it enables the police to arrest someone even though he has not committed, or is not thought to be about to commit, any specific offence? That seems to illustrate the dangerously wide nature of Section 41, to which I have drawn attention before.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course, I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. The noble and learned Lord also well knows that we held quite intensive debates on the balance that must be borne in mind before the proper exercise of powers under Section 41. It was for that reason that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, was invited properly to keep under review the provisions, and that does work.
I do not think that I have yet said clearly that Section 44 was used in the generality, but in relation to the arrests—which was the purport of the Question—it was Section 41.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
11.36 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, before public business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I shall be undertaking ministerial visits to Manchester and Bolton on Monday, 6th October and Thursday, 9th October respectively? Accordingly, I trust that the House will give me leave of absence.

Business
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, a little later this morning, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will make an announcement of interest to at least 93 of your Lordships. I wish to remind noble Lords of the procedure outlined in the Companion. The noble and learned Lord makes his Statement; there is then 20 minutes for Front-Bench interventions and a further 20 minutes for Back-Bench interventions.
On this occasion it seems that only 20 minutes for the Back Benches is somewhat restrictive. I propose, therefore, if noble Lords are content, to double the time to a maximum of 40 minutes, if that is wished for.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Bill
11.37 a.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Constitutional Reform
11.38 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about further reforms to your Lordships' House, and on the office of Lord Chancellor.
I am today publishing two consultation papers on the next steps on House of Lords reform and on the functions of the Lord Chancellor. Copies of both papers are available in the Printed Paper Office.
These papers form another significant part of the present phase of constitutional reform on which the Government embarked last summer, with the creation of a Department for Constitutional Affairs to take overall responsibility for these issues.
May I begin by apologising to the House because a report of the House of Lords proposals appeared in a Sunday newspaper? I can assure the House that no one in my department was authorised to speak to the press on this subject. It has always been the Government's intention to ensure that Parliament should hear first about these proposals.
I shall deal first with our proposals for further reform of your Lordships' House. Last February, this House and the other place voted on the range of options for the composition of our second Chamber proposed by the Joint Committee of both Houses. Your Lordships voted three to one in favour of an appointed House. In the other place, there was no majority for any of the options.
The Joint Committee, in its second report published on 9th May, reflected on the outcome of the parliamentary votes and concluded that,
"simply to maintain the status quo",
in respect of composition was undesirable. The Government agree.
1058
In these circumstances we intend to make progress where we can. So the Government are proposing further reforms to ensure that we have a stable and sustainable House of Lords. It was never our intention that the remaining hereditary Peers should remain Members of the House for ever. When this interim arrangement was reached, as well as the immediate benefit of the agreement, we accepted the argument that the presence of the remaining hereditary Peers would act as an incentive to further reform. That has not happened. There is clearly no consensus in Parliament on the way forward.
So the context for reform has clearly and significantly changed. The circumstances which gave rise to the original arrangement over the remaining hereditary Peers no longer apply. The solution which the remaining hereditary Peers were here to help is no longer available.
So the Government must act, and act decisively, to bring about stability and sustainability. It is for the Government to act but it is for Parliament to decide. It will be for Parliament as a whole to decide on the removal of the right to sit and vote of the remaining hereditary Peers.
Therefore the next step of our reform programme will be to introduce legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to remove the right of the remaining 92 hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' House, thus completing that element of the reform process on which we embarked in 1997.
In moving on from the current arrangement, I want to pay tribute to the contribution which those 92 Peers make to your Lordships' House. Many of them are among our most active and effective Members. I hope that we shall continue to benefit from the contribution of at least some of them should they be nominated as life Peers in the future.
We shall set up a statutory commission to select and oversee appointments that are made to this House. This will build on the present non-statutory Appointments Commission, which itself represented a significant voluntary relinquishing by the Prime Minister of his powers of patronage. The statutory commission will be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen in response to an Address from Parliament. The three major parties in this House and the Cross-Bench Peers will be directly represented on it, together with a number of members selected in accordance with the principles of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in an open selection process. The Government will discuss with the opposition parties how they may best be involved in the selection process. The commission's funding and accountability arrangements will maximise its independence from the Government. The consultation document asks for views on various detailed aspects of these arrangements.
We propose that the functions of the commission will be threefold. First, it would decide on the number and timing of new appointments to the House. This will be a massive—and voluntary—diminution in the Prime Minister's influence over the membership of the House. In making its decisions in relation to political

1059
appointments the commission will be subject to two main guidelines. These are that the government of the day should not have an overall majority in the House and that appointments for the parties should have regard to the outcome of the previous general election. The commission will also be expected to provide that appointments to the Cross Benches should average 20 per cent of appointments over the lifetime of a Parliament. The commission's second function would be to nominate the non-party Peers. And, thirdly, it would vet the nominations for party Peers for propriety.
In the mean time, the existing non-statutory Appointments Commission will continue its work, of which the Prime Minister has already expressed the Government's appreciation. The Prime Minister will invite it to make recommendations for new non-party Peers until the new statutory commission is in place.
We also propose to bring the rules for disqualification for membership of this House in respect of detention following conviction for an offence into line with those for the House of Commons. We do not believe that this difference of treatment can any longer be justified. We therefore propose that in future such Peers will forfeit their membership of the House exactly as they would if they were MPs. In addition, they will deprived of their peerage. The provision will have retrospective effect. Parliament is a privilege, not a possession. Such Peers of course, be free to seek renewed membership of the House by applying to the Appointments Commission or their party, as relevant, for nomination, just as former Members of Parliament can seek re-election.
We propose that life Peers, like hereditary Peers before them, should in future be able to resign their peerages and membership of the House. This is a fairer and more reasonable arrangement which will allow those who feel they wish to move on and no longer sit in the second Chamber the opportunity to do so.
Nothing in these proposals relates to the powers of the House. We are not proposing any extension of the role of the second Chamber. For example, the traditional role of this House in relation to Finance Bills is clear and works well, its powers being constrained by the Parliament Act 1911 and Commons' financial privilege established in resolutions in the 17th century. I am sure that your Lordships would not seek to extend its powers, for example, in respect of supply. The House of Commons should and must remain pre-eminent in our constitutional arrangements.
On further reform of this House, we will continue to look for a way forward. We will discuss any possible next steps with the current Joint Committee and how it can contribute.
Taken together, these changes amount to a substantial set of reforms to the House. When added to our previously announced decisions to set up a separate supreme court and to remove the office of Lord Chancellor, thus leading to reform of the office of Speaker, they will create a House that is significantly different from that which presently exists.
1060
I am also publishing today a consultation paper on the reform of the office of Lord Chancellor. Work to bring an end to the multiple roles of the Lord Chancellor is already well advanced. I am formally inviting views on the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage, his visitatorial responsibilities and other functions relating to specific charities, schools and other institutions.
The proposals I am announcing today are part of the programme of constitutional reform which the Government have been pursuing since 1997. They will contribute to the further strengthening of Parliament. Alongside our earlier reforms of devolution to Scotland and Wales, the Human Rights Act and freedom of information, they will take their place in the shaping of our nation, to make the institutions of the state fit and responsive to the demands of our citizens in the modern world.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
11.46 a.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is a good custom of the House to thank the Minister for making the Statement. I readily do that to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
But here we go again—days behind the Sunday Times. Is it not utterly extraordinary that this great House of Parliament is being told about the latest edict on its future six days after the media? Why such glaring discourtesy and contempt for this House? How much longer are we expected to tolerate this treatment?
Apologies are no longer enough. The Government need to clean up their act. They promise an end to spin just as they reach for the pager. They talk about looking for consensus, and then plunge into self-seeking, go-it-alone change. Time was when the Government boasted of governing for all the people. Now they behave as if the constitution were the private property of the Prime Minister and his friends.
This is a fundamentally dishonest Statement. It is pretending that the Government are still interested in long-term reform when they are pushing a short-term political fix. No one can believe what they say any more. No one can believe that they have the slightest intention of ever delivering genuine reform.
Why have they totally ignored the Royal Commission? Why have they pre-empted the Joint Committee of both Houses? Were the members of that committee consulted on this announcement? If not, how humiliating is that for them?
The issue at stake now is not the future of the hereditary Peers—that issue was done and dusted in 1999. No one any more has the right to sit by virtue of a hereditary peerage alone. The real question that Parliament has to face over the next few months is far bigger—what this House will be in the future and what authority it will have. No legislation affecting this House can be launched without opening up questions that go wider than the narrow compass of a Bill, and every one of us will be affected by it.

1061
Here and in another place we will all face a choice: to buy the Prime Minister's three-card trick and strengthen No. 10 even further at the expense of Parliament; or see this Statement for what it is—a blatant attempt to rig this House and to have a free hand to cook the constitution. It is a political statement of one party and for one party—the very opposite of what constitutional reform should be. Any principle—any pretence of principle—has been dumped. The ideals of the Cook-Maclennan talks have been betrayed, all the pledges of a more democratic House have been trashed. The legitimate expectations of this House in 1999, when so many of its Members surrendered their places, on the basis that 92 hereditary Peers would remain to guarantee genuine reform, have been gratuitously and deliberately dishonoured. It is a sorry and shabby tale, and I am not alone in believing that this ancient House deserves far, far better.
The noble and learned Lord, for all his honeyed words, cannot escape his role in this. Once we all saw him, with some affection, as the man who had to clear up the Prime Minister's messes—the Dome, the latest concessions to the IRA, even legalising sex in public lavatories. Name the problem and the noble and learned Lord would offer a solution. But now we can see that he was part of the problem. He was up to the hilt in bouncing this House over the removal of the Law Lords and now his fingerprints are all over this tacky little plan.
Can the noble and learned Lord tell us why more tinkering with this House is suddenly so critically urgent? Frankly, most people in this country, if they have a view, think this House works rather well, as indeed it does. What has changed since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was still talking of a search for consensus as recently as this summer? Can it be anything to do with the fact that this House has begun to show independence and win respect and authority? Can it be that we have questioned the Government over issues such as trial by jury, media ownership, the snoopers' charter and the fair conduct of justice in the courts? Could it be the issue of a referendum on the new EU constitution—a referendum this House might support and the Prime Minister so desperately wants to avoid? Is that why the noble and learned Lord wants to remove 20 per cent of the non-governmental Peers in this House, some of the most active and experienced Peers among us?
Let us look at who will lose: great campaigners like the noble Countess, Lady Mar, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We would lose the wisdom of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friends Lord Denham, Lord Ferrers and Lord Elton, who have devoted years of their life to serve this House. At 88, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, devotes more time to this House and contributes more than many new Labour Peers who come here, take their seat and are never seen again. Will the noble Lord have to present himself before an appointments commission? It is utterly contemptible. So why now, and why them?
1062
The Government talk of losing Divisions as if Parliament had no right to suggest alterations to their Bills. So let it be put on the record, before their spin doctors get to work, that in 40 per cent of the Divisions the Government have lost this year, fewer than half their own Peers supported them. The Government's policies have simply failed to convince this House.
The noble and learned Lord made great play of the statutory appointments commission. In principle, it is welcome. We have waited a long time for it, though, so can he say precisely when it will be enacted?
The House will note that the Government no longer talk of broad parity with the main opposition party. Instead, they now talk of not having an overall majority in the House. Does not that mean that the Government would have a majority over the two main opposition parties combined? Can he also confirm that the White Paper explores the further option of seats in this House reflecting the number of seats won in another place? There would not be much point in a statutory appointments commission if it had terms of reference to gerrymander. The House will wish to look very sceptically at these proposals.
The Statement also referred to the future of the office of the Lord Chancellor. We will have the opportunity to debate that more fully, as we have been promised a debate by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House.
The bottom line today is that the Government are in a hurry. Perhaps that is because there is an increasing sense of time running out for those in Downing Street. But surely this is the last moment to pile more constitutional change on the incoherent mess that we have already been given. It will be a major task for the next government to bring order from confusion and breathe back into Parliament the life that is steadily being squeezed from it.
We have known for a long time that the personal dream of the Prime Minister was not the democratic House he once talked about but an appointed House he could ignore. He has never dared to advocate that openly, but this proposal, taken together with the removal of the Law Lords, will now give it to him through the back door.
In some ways, this is a model new Labour policy—pre-spun, ill thought out, tactical, planned in the party interest not the national interest, sold on old-fashioned prejudice and calculated only to make a complex problem even worse. If this Bill is ever presented to this House, the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues can be assured that he can expect a major fight on his hands, and it will not be confined to this Bill. This House values its independence, and in the past four years it has found a voice that the country is increasingly willing to hear. We on this side of the House will not give that up lightly.
11.56 a.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the Statement delivered by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor refers to two papers. One of them concerns the reform

1063
of his office; that paper adds little to existing announcements except some detail on subsidiary functions, and that can be dealt with in due course.
The second paper on the future of the House of Lords is an entirely different matter. I have looked through that paper to find whether there was anything acceptable in it. I eventually found something in the last paragraph—the power to renounce a life peerage. It is a power that I doubt will be much used. I also welcome the power to disqualify Members after conviction leading to a prison sentence, although I wonder if retrospective disqualification is legitimate under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But the overwhelming reaction I have is a feeling of contempt and betrayal.
In 1997, we and many others seeking reform of your Lordships' House believed that the Government meant what they said in their manifesto and would make your Lordships' House a wholly or mainly elected House. We believed that the Government meant what they said when the House of Lords Act was passed in 1999 and most hereditaries left. We believed that the Government meant what they said in their 2001 manifesto. Even last February, when both Houses voted on options, we believed that there was a real chance of reform.
The Government scuppered that chance by putting pressure on Labour MPs to reject the options on what was supposed to be a free vote. Without that pressure, there would clearly have been a majority for either 60 per cent or 80 per cent elected, or both. So the Government's use of the failure to reach agreement in the House of Commons is frankly like the boy who murdered his parents and then asked for mercy because he was an orphan.
The Government have now made it clear that they want no democratic reform at all. They have betrayed the trust of those who believed that they were truly committed to full constitutional reform. They have done so because your Lordships' House is a nuisance to them. We amend their Bills and we take up their time in debates. A proper reform would make things even worse for the Government, so they take the easy way out. Your Lordships' House will remain wholly appointed.
It is, and remains, the aim of my party to end the hereditary basis of membership. But the remaining hereditary Members should go when, and only when, they can be replaced by a mainly elected membership.
That is not the end of it as regards this report. In 1997, the Prime Minister said that, pending reform, the two largest parties should have equal membership in your Lordships' House and that the third party should have representation proportionate to its share of the vote. The Government now say only that the Government should not have an overall majority in your Lordships' House. But given that 20 per cent of your Lordships' House will plainly remain as Cross-Benchers—indeed, that is stated as the objective—the Government could end up with a massive majority over all other political parties, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Opposition, said.
1064
Furthermore, the Government are reopening the question of whether party representation should be proportionate to the share of the vote or to the share of seats in the House of Commons. If representation were proportionate to the share of seats, we would end up with a clone of the House of Commons. That would mean, among other things, that since 1997 almost every single political appointment would have been an appointment of the Labour Party. So long as Members of the House of Commons are elected on first past the post, it is essential that appointments to your Lordships' House should be proportional to votes, not to seats.
Ninety-two years ago, it was said in the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 that it was,
"intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis".
The aim of the Government is to ensure that the House of Lords will be constituted on neither of those bases. The aim of the Government is not only to remove the hereditary Members of your Lordships' House, but to castrate your Lordships' House.
12.1 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, both those interventions appeared not to take into account that this House voted overwhelmingly for an appointed-only Chamber. I am quite unable to understand the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He himself may have voted for an elected element, but more than 120 of those behind him voted for a wholly appointed House. We have to recognise that no consensus emerged within the other place and none emerged between the two Houses.
So what is it that the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Goodhart, would have us do? Both of them, as I understand it, would have us do nothing. That would have two consequences. First, the hereditaries would remain; I believe that everybody agrees that they have done sterling service but that they no longer have a place in the second Chamber. Secondly, it would lead to a non-statutory appointments commission, with the numbers and timing determined by somebody other than an independent commission.
Let us take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He complains that the measure would allow the Prime Minister to determine the size of the House. It would not. One provision made in the consultation document is that the size of the House and the timing of when people go in is to be determined by the statutory appointments commission. Conveniently for those on the other side of the House who make their various arguments, that leads to the preservation of the hereditary Peers and to the position of the Prime Minister retaining his patronage.
We are in the business of making progress where we can. That is why we have proposed these things. One reason why we have proposed them is because this House, on the basis of how it reacted in February, would reject any elected element. We have to be practical and realistic and move where we can.
12.4 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I start by thanking the Lord Chancellor for his courtesy in informing me as Convenor on Monday about the Statement and its content. But that is the sum total of my gratitude. I was under the impression that there were to be no further changes in the make-up of the House until stage two was reached. We have not reached it.
Is there not a serious breach of faith at the heart of this Statement? Is this Statement today not just a hawkish position to ease the party conference problems that the Government are about to face? If it is, it is a gross discourtesy to this House.
Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor acknowledge the immense contribution made to the Cross Benches by the 28 independent hereditary Peers? Does he accept that there is good reason to continue to draw on the experience and expertise of all hereditary Members for the benefit of the House, its legislation and the country? It is widely acknowledged that the House performs its scrutiny and other roles with a sure and constructive touch. The hereditaries' deep knowledge and experience is irreplaceable in one go. Must they be culled all at once? Do the Government really envisage a kind of reincarnation whereby all those removed may return as life Peers?
It would be perverse if this change, short of stage two, served only to debase the capability of the House to carry out its roles and functions. If a Bill comes to your Lordships' House, I hope that the House will support what I termed option 1A in my speech last January on Lords reform—that is, to retain existing hereditary Members for life, but without replacement, so ensuring that the country continues to benefit from the loyalty and commitment of the present hereditary Members to the House. Will the Government accept this option for inclusion in their Bill?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor makes much of the relinquishing of the Prime Minister's patronage, but will the Prime Minister continue to recommend individuals such as archbishops, Cabinet Secretaries and chiefs of defence staff for a peerage, as an honour, without recourse to the Statutory Appointments Commission? Are future life peerages recommended by that commission to be treated as honours or merely as working Peers to replace departing Members of your Lordships' House?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I of course acknowledge the contribution made to the House by Cross-Benchers and I hope that I made it clear in the Statement that I acknowledge the contribution made by hereditary Cross-Benchers. Indeed, I acknowledge the contribution made by all hereditary Peers to the proceedings of this House. However, I do not believe that it is right that the hereditary principle should determine who can take part in the second Chamber.
After the failure to reach consensus, the time has come for a change to be made. Because no consensus has been reached between the two Houses, it would be right to ensure, first, that the hereditary principle
1066
comes to an end as a basis of membership of this House and, secondly, that the patronage determining who becomes a Member of the House is put largely in the hands of an independent appointments commission.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, referred to particular office holders—to Cabinet Secretaries and various others. We believe that they make a significant contribution to the House and that it is right that they should be offered life peerages at the point when their service to the nation has come to an end. We do not believe for one moment that that undermines the principles of this paper.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recognise that many of us feel that he must be fully aware that what he proposes is in clear breach of undertakings given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, his predecessor as Lord Chancellor? Will he go away and read in Hansard, col. 1092 of 11th May 1999, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, said:
"The Government are absolutely committed to moving to stage two in the reform process"?
He said that when stage two reform took place,
"the hereditary Peers who remain, if the Weatherill amendment passes, will cease to be Members of this House‖ The 10 per cent will go when stage two has taken place and their presence is a guarantee that stage two will take place".—[Official Report, 11/5/1999; col. 1092.]
Is the noble and learned Lord seriously suggesting that the Bill will bring about stage two reform to which the former Lord Chancellor referred? Of course not. Stage two reform was the full-scale reform referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, in her Statement of 20th January 1999, to which I also refer the noble and learned Lord.
After this mean little Bill becomes law, will we not be left with a House composed entirely of people who owe their presence here to present-day patronage—a House less independent of government and less effective as a check on the executive?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, of course I have read in detail the debates of 1999 and, of course, I am aware of what was said by representatives of the Government at the time. I am in absolutely no doubt that there is no breach of any of those undertakings whatever.
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in relation to those undertakings, the position is that attempts were made to reach a consensus. This House rejected any elected element and voted for an appointed-only Chamber.

1067
Because no consensus was reached, we must make progress where we can. There is no breach of the undertakings.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords—
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, shall we start with the right reverend Prelate and then go to my noble friend?
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, this is not a moment for any of us on these Benches to express our personal opinions about these particular proposals, but only to ask that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor remain aware that the commitment of the Church of England throughout the process has been to ensure the best House for the service of the nation and to play its part in that. Although I note that the proposals make no change in the position of the Bishops in the House, I draw his attention to the fact that we have consistently said that the issue of the representation of the faith communities and of the Christian denominations as a whole in the House remains to be resolved. I do not believe that we have made any difficulties about proceeding with reform in that respect. I should therefore like some assurance that that aspect of the reform of the Lords, which I admit is perhaps not the one that engages most people's attention most of the time, will not be forgotten or kicked into the long grass for a long time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate says, the proposals make no change in the position of the Bishops because there is no consensus on that. The points that he makes are important and need to be considered when we seek to build a consensus for a way forward beyond this Bill.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend accept that one of the problems about failing to have any consensus about the membership of the House is that there is in fact no consensus about what the House should be doing? Unless we resolve precisely the status of the House in relation to the other place, the argument about composition will go on for ever. In passing, I shall make a wry comment. The Front-Benchers for the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats have stated clearly that they wish to see a much stronger House of Lords. In fact, they wish to upset the balance that has existed for many years whereby the other place is pre-eminent and cannot be wholly challenged. The thirst of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats for the accretion of power to this Chamber is in direct relation to their unrealistic prospects of ever having power in the other place.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the relationship between this place and another place is obviously important. Although there are issues about the detail, I do not think that there is any fundamental
1068
disagreement between the parties that the House of Commons is pre-eminent, that we are primarily a revising Chamber, or that, ultimately, the other place should have its business. We can discuss the detail of that, but there is broad consensus that that is the position. As for the prospects of the other side in the next general election, it is probably best at this stage not to comment.
Lord Marsh: My Lords—
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords—
Lord Renton: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross-Benchers. I respectfully remind your Lordships that the shorter the interventions, the more of your Lordships who can be heard.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I declare an interest as one of those involved with the Weatherill amendment. Certainly in my case and that of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, the discussions took place in the clear belief that there was a need to find a basis whereby we could reach an agreement that would enable us to move on with the question of the future of the hereditary Peers. That has been the major issue throughout this long debate. We have all known that this was Labour Party policy since long before the 1997 general election, but we thought that we could now reach an agreement. These were off-record, Privy Council discussions.
The reality is that there has been no progress whatever since that time, and we are as divided now as we were then. In retrospect, I think that it was naïve to believe that it would he otherwise. For 18 years, the Opposition could have put through any change they wished, with a majority in both Houses. I had thought that we had got past that position, but we clearly have not. I now think that we have reached a stage where, although many of us will not like the decisions that are being reached, this has gone on for so long that we demean the status of the House. I think that it should now be a priority that we get on with a job that we should have been able to deal with some years ago.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that intervention has particular force from someone who was involved with the Weatherill amendment.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to approach the same central issue on a more practical basis. I would certainly welcome a decision in favour of a manifestly independent new commission by statute, if that is in line with the recommendations of the Joint Committee. Is he aware that the Joint Committee also expressed its view that there was no consensus about introducing any elected element? I welcome the Government's acceptance of that, not least because it represents the wishes of a huge majority in the House.

1069
Does the noble and learned Lord now recognise—this is the important point—that there has been a huge change in the circumstances surrounding the commitment to get rid of the hereditaries given in an election some years ago? Is that not implicit in what is stated in the Government's response to the last report of the Joint Committee, with their purpose being,
"establishing the present House of Lords in a stable state for the medium term"?
The lat sentence states:
"the Government will concentrate on making the House of Lords work as effectively as possible in fulfilment of its important role".
Against that practically important assertion and against the background of the noble and learned Lord's glowing tributes to the role played by the hereditary Peers, on which we all agree, and the difficult questions that would arise if they are removed and we suddenly have to fulfil the roles that they fulfil for us, would it not make complete sense to maintain their presence in the Chamber? It is not sufficient to thank them as they disappear into the mists of time. Would it not make sense—even if the Government are currently determined, for reasons which I think are misguided, to sweep them away—to ensure their continued presence here along the lines proposed, admittedly for different reasons, by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and others? What on earth is the practically sensible point of getting rid of people who have played such a crucially important part here and also maintain a balance of the House that is about right by the standards recognised by the Royal Commission?
The Lord Chancellor: No, my Lords; it would not. The noble and learned Lord rightly accepts that circumstances have completely changed from 1999. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made absolutely clear, my party made it clear time and time again that the hereditary principle should not be the basis upon which people sat in the House. It is no longer appropriate or sensible, if we are looking for a sustainable and acceptable House, that part of the membership is based on the hereditary principle. With no discourtesy to the hereditaries themselves and no diminution of our acceptance of the important role that they have played, surely the time has come to change the provisions. The hereditary principle should no longer play a part in deciding who sits in the second Chamber.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords—
Lord Elder: My Lords—
Lord Renton: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Weatherill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if we hear first from the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, it will then be the turn of the Labour Benches.
Lord Weatherill: Thank you, my Lords. As one who had some input into the legislation in 1999 that created the present membership of your Lordships' House, I share the concern and sadness expressed by others. However, I must say to the House—I would fail in my duty as a former Speaker not to remind the House—that a government with a majority have a right to get their business. That has to be measured against the equal right of an Opposition to criticise and improve. I hope that I did not hear an implied threat from the Front Benches opposite that the Opposition would persist in other areas as well. That would be irresponsible opposition.
Throughout the passage of the House of Lords Bill, I fully accept that the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, made it plain that the election of the 10 per cent who are with us now was a first stage of the reform of the House and that they would remain until stage two was completed. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, cited Hansard. My reference from Hansard is to when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"But the 10 per cent. will go only when stage two has taken place".—[Official Report, 30/3/99; col. 207.]
As has been endlessly repeated, stage two has not taken place.
I recognise that the election of a noble Lord to sit on the Labour Benches with an electorate of three is an absolute nonsense and is possibly—almost certainly—the reason for today's Statement. In February, I introduced the House of Lords (Amendment) Bill, referred to by the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers as option IA. It was designed to overcome the further election of hereditary Peers to your Lordships' House. I did not proceed because there was some opposition from the Conservative Benches, but had I been able to do so with the support of the House, that would have overcome many of the problems that we face today.
I hope that that will be one of the considerations taken into account when consultations are taking place on further reform. In saying that, I salute the hereditary Peers, who have done such an excellent job in your Lordships' House. I should like to see them continue to do so.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was implicitly threatening to cause difficulties for the Government in getting our business. That would certainly be contrary to the way in which this House has always operated in the past. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is nodding his head behind the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, so I take it that he is indicating on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that he intends to disrupt the business of the House.
As for the other points made by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, as I think that I made clear in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, the position is now

1071
very different from that in 1999. We believe that the time has come for steps to be taken to remove the remaining hereditaries.
Lord Elder: My Lords—
Lord Renton: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think it is the turn of my noble friend Lord Elder.
Lord Elder: My Lords, in expressing my welcome for the Statement, may I assure my noble and learned friend that many on this side of the House will view it as a sensible next stage, in the circumstances where the other place has not shown any clear view on reform and this House has voted for precisely what it will now get? I find it slightly surprising that others should be so opposed to what this House voted for as the solution.
Can we have further clarification on whether the Opposition really intend to seek to use anger on this issue to try to deny the Government their right to legislation? On one minor but important point, my noble and learned friend said that finance and supply were of course matters for another place. Does that statement have any implications for the current trial whereby the Economic Affairs Committee of this House considers certain technical aspects of the Finance Bill and reports to this House on them?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the first part of my noble friend's question is for the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and those on his side of the House. I must leave it to him to answer it, but he appears to suggest that there will be disruption.
As for the second part, as I said in my Statement, the traditional role of this House during the course of the Finance Bill is an example of the system working well when it works in the traditional way. The House has an opportunity to consider the Bill on Second Reading, but its powers have been constrained by the Parliament Act 1911 and Commons financial privilege, established through resolutions passed in the 17th century. In answer to my noble friend's specific question, the Government would not want any extension of the role of the House or its Committees in that matter.
Lord Renton: My Lords—
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, my questions are about the effect of the proposed changes on the party balance in this House and thereby, inevitably, on its ability to act as an effective check on the government and a revising Chamber.
Several noble Lords have rightly said that the hereditaries are among our most active and effective Members. They are also by far our most active voting
1072
Members. For example, if we consider all votes in contested Divisions during the previous Session, on average the Government obtained 54 per cent of the vote and the Opposition 46. If the hereditaries had been removed, at a stroke that proportion of government votes would have risen from 54 to 60 per cent. That is the real significance of what the Government are trying to do; they are trying to neutralise the Opposition in the House of Lords.
Obviously, we on these Benches are in favour of a significant elected element to the House, but we are not in favour of flouting the will of the Commons. If I may say so, a lot of nonsense has been talked about there being no clear view from the Commons. One clear view from the Commons was that it was not in favour of an all-elected House.
On the question of party balance, I listened carefully, as I always do, to the noble and learned Lord. We heard some carefully phrased words about how the new statutory independent appointments commission will operate. We heard that it will recommend numbers and timing of appointments, but one key question remains: who will finally decide on the numbers of different party appointments to be made after the commission has suggested that it is time to nominate some more? For all the talk about having regard to this and that, unless the Prime Minister is prepared to give up that power, ultimately, his fingers are still firmly on the lever of power. What is the Government's intention on that point?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the statutory appointments commission should decide the numbers as between the parties. As I understand the Liberal Democrat position, they would not want that to happen; they would want that power to remain with the Prime Minister. That is why they oppose the Bill. I understand that the Liberal Democrats are also opposing the removal of the hereditaries.
Those points are made clear in the Statement and the consultation document. That is why we say that we are making it a House in which the patronage of the Prime Minister is dramatically reduced; that is why we say that we shall make it a much more modern House in the way that it operates.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I venture to intervene because I think that I have had longer experience of service—continuous service—in both Houses than any other living person: 34 years in the House of Commons and 24 years with your Lordships. I have seen tremendous changes take place during that time.
There was a time when the membership of the House of Commons contained a vast array of people of distinction and with real talent and experience. Now, alas, it is not quite the same. To give but one example, in 1959, there were 30 Queen's Counsel in another place. The number did not decline much until about 15 years ago. But in your Lordships' House we now have a great array of talent. For example, for hundreds of years, the posts of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General were held by Members of the House of Commons, but during the past six years the present

1073
Government have been unable to find an Attorney-General there and we have had the advantage of an Attorney-General in your Lordships' House.
What is to be done? We must realise that democracy has its limitations. Do I not know? I have fought and won 10 general elections. I never thought that more than a third of those who voted really understood the issues. House of Commons membership is now a full-time job. That limits the number of people with experience and expertise who can be there. Therefore the future composition of your Lordships' House must fill the gaps which now exist in the House of Commons.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, looking around the House we can form a view on where all those QCs that used to be in the Commons went—to my right, to my left and across the way. We want a House with a strong independent element. We want a House whose Members have experience of other matters concurrent with taking part in the deliberations of the second Chamber. I do not think that any of us would disagree with that. I bow to the great experience of the noble Lord. Lord Renton, in indicating the importance of that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in view of the fact that many speakers feel that the change is not acceptable. will my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor tell us whether any representations were made by them and how we get over the problem that in a House of 700 the Government cannot command the support of 200? These Benches represent 27 per cent of the House. I wonder whether, in the search for fairness and fair play, Members opposite have made any helpful suggestions on how that imbalance can be corrected.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have not heard any suggestions on how the imbalance can be corrected. Indeed, I have not heard any suggestions from the Benches opposite on how we move forward except to leave the position as it is with, for example, the Prime Minister deciding the size of the House, the numbers who can come in and the split between the parties. That, as I understand it, is the position of noble Lords opposite.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has, or at least used to have, a decent grasp of the basic principles of contract law. I have to say that in those circumstances I find utterly unintelligible his assertion that the Statement is not a total renegation on the promises given by his predecessor on behalf of the Government. That was described as a compromise deal. In the passage cited by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, the then Lord Chancellor said that the presence of the remaining hereditaries was,
"a guarantee that stage two will take place".—[Official Report, 11/5/99; col. 1092.]
1074
He did not say that it was an incentive, as the Statement now says, but a guarantee. It was a guarantee not that the House would vote the way the Government wanted but that the Government would press ahead and get some legislation through for stage two. If the Government can invoke the Parliament Act for trivial matters such as hunting, presumably, if they could only make up their mind what they wanted in this place, they could get on and invoke that Act. If the noble and learned Lord had been present during prayers, he would have heard sound words praising him who sweareth unto his neighbour and disappointeth him not. Does it surprise him that when the Government sweareth unto their neighbour and totally renege, those on whom they have reneged should perhaps consider how they can best inconvenience the Government that have reneged on their promises?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, first, I defer completely to the noble Viscount in relation to contract law, in which he is one of the world's leading experts. Secondly, we are not reneging on our promise. It has been made clear time and time again in the course of this short debate that the position has completely changed. I do not think that anyone understood the effect of the position in 1999—that the hereditaries could stay for ever and ever irrespective of what happened.
Lord Denham: My Lords—
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, could we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Denham?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, quoted a predecessor of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referring to what has subsequently become known as his amendment. But unfortunately he stopped a little too soon. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, further stated:
"The amendment reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Counsellors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent".—[Official Report, 30/3/99; col. 207.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I have made clear time and time again, I do not think that there is one iota of dishonourable conduct in relation to the Government so far as this matter is concerned because the position was never understood to be that the hereditaries could stay until there was a satisfactory stage two, by which I mean satisfactory to this House.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords—
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Lord Strabolgi.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. May I ask my noble and learned

1075
friend one question please? When is it proposed that the Bill will be effective? Will it be effective on Royal Assent or at the end of the Session, or later? The reason I ask—and it is important—is that we are at present—I and two of my colleagues—engaged in an election of a hereditary Peer to replace Lord Milner of Leeds. It would be useful to know how long we are going to elect him for.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, not just in this House is that election very closely followed. Indeed, the possibility of a draw in the election is very much anticipated. A complete non-attendance at the election is also possible. It is an important issue. As I indicated in the Statement, all I can say in relation to the timing of the introduction of the Bill is that it will be when legislative time permits. I cannot confirm when it will be introduced. As regards at precisely what point it will become effective, I am afraid that I cannot say at the moment. In relation to the election to which my noble friend referred, the electorate will have to form their view, I am afraid, without knowing those details.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if we all have short interventions, we have another seven minutes to go. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, first perhaps.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I understand that it is the Government's intention to remove from our House Peers convicted of offences on the same basis as in the House of Commons. I think that is perfectly reasonable but I am rather alarmed at the principle of retrospection which was introduced, which seems designed to catch one person in particular. Will the noble and learned Lord reconsider that principle because we have a long-standing and justified prejudice in this country against the principle of retrospective legislation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the issue of retrospection must be looked at as a matter of principle, not by reference to any individual. So far as the principle is concerned, is it right that someone who has been convicted of a criminal offence and then sent to prison for more than 12 months should take part in the proceedings of this House? The principle that we think should apply is that that person should not do so. That is the principle that applies in the House of Commons. We think that the same principle should apply here.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, why has the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor chosen this moment to make this announcement? Yesterday I was summoned to a meeting of the Joint Committee
1076
that will take place on 28th October to discuss the Government's July Statement. Why has this moment been chosen to humiliate the Joint Committee and the undertakings to Parliament of the noble and learned Lord's predecessor? Why now? Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor give an absolute guarantee that no legislation will be brought before this House to implement the European constitution until such time as this matter is resolved? Are we going to see the hereditaries removed from this House, gerrymandered out of this House, so that he can force through legislation which takes away powers from Parliament for ever? If so, this Government are a disgrace and the noble and learned Lord will have achieved what one of his predecessors described as the elective dictatorship.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that question is nonsense. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would have it that decisions about the numbers of Peers from each party should remain with the Prime Minister. What we propose is that that issue should be decided by the statutory appointments commission which has precisely the opposite effect to that which the noble Lord proposes. I am quite unable to understand why he wishes to preserve the status quo if he has the concerns which he has. I should be interested to know whether the Opposition are committed to reintroduce, first, the hereditary Peers' right to sit in this House and, secondly, whether it is their proposal that the statutory appointments commission should not have the kind of decision-making powers to which I referred.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords—
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, could we first have the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, immediately followed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can we tidy up the business of what the opposition parties want? What the noble and learned Lord has said certainly distorts the position of this party. I admit that I voted for an all-appointed House, but that is not the position of my party. My noble friend on the Front Bench and my noble friend Lord Oakeshott have made that clear. What the party wants is a fully elected House.
The noble and learned Lord seems to be saying that we are at stage two. This was certainly not the stage two that anyone envisaged for the final reform of this House. Albeit that there is to be a statutory appointments commission, as I am sure will be welcome in the case of a fully appointed House—the idea of taking away the patronage of the Prime Minister is very good—if the base will be the number of seats in the House of Commons and not the number

1077
of votes cast for the parties in the House of Commons, that is an even greater distortion than we have at the moment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have two points. First, I fully understand the position that the noble Lord takes; he supports an appointed House. I fully understand as well the position so far as concerns the Liberal Democrats; they would support a fully elected House. The noble Lord is aware that this House decisively, by three to one, rejected the idea of an elected House, so there would be disagreement between this House and the House of Commons about whether there should be an elected element, let alone a fully elected element. In the light of that lack of consensus between the two Houses, we think that the right course is to make such changes as one can that improve the arrangements. That includes taking away from the Prime Minister the patronage on the make-up of the House.
Secondly, so far as how the previous general election is to be reflected in the activity of the statutory appointments commission, we have always said in the past that it should be on the basis of the votes cast. We say that in the document. The other alternative is seats. Do people agree that we should continue on the basis of votes in the previous general election?
I hope that that reassures the noble Lord and that, in the light of what I have said and the recognition of the fact that there is disagreement, he will feel able to vote for what we believe to be very sensible changes.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has referred to two papers. So far the discussion has pretty heavily concentrated on one of them but, from my point of view, the second is obviously rather important.
The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said that the Statement would be made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. In the list of Cabinet offices in Hansard, the last member of the Cabinet is referred to as the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor. Am I right in thinking that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has taken the judicial oath, and that he will perform the responsibilities of Lord Chancellor as the president of the supreme court until statute relieves him of that responsibility?
It is extremely important that we know that in the interim. It may not be all that long, but it is bound to he some time before legislation can be introduced. I assume—correctly, I hope—that the noble and learned Lord will perform those functions and the others referred to in the paper until statute relieves him of them.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am as bewildered as the noble and learned Lord at the lack of interest in the detail of the other paper in relation to the Lord Chancellor's role, and disappointed that more questions were not asked of me about my visitorial
1078
office. I confirm, very willingly, that I will continue to perform loyally all the functions of the Lord Chancellor, including those referred to in the paper, until such time as formal change has been made in those roles.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have come to the end. Your Lordships will have noticed that only four Labour questions were called, so the multi-faceted voice of the Opposition has been fairly heard.

Local Government Bill
12.44 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reason be now considered.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
  COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF AN AMENDMENT TO WHICH THE COMMONS HAVE DISAGREED
  [The page and line references are to HL Bill 43 as first printed for the Lords.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  3 Clause 11, page 5, line 32, leave out paragraph (b)
  The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
  3A Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may he deemed sufficient. The Lords do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  3B page 5, line 33, leave out from "receipt" to end and insert "to be used by the receiving authority in accordance with directions by the Secretary of State"
  The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
  3C Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3B to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3C.
  I do not need to repeat what I said yesterday, save for the fact that the Commons gave in its reason numbered 3C exactly the argument that it gave in its reason numbered 3A; namely, that the amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons. The Commons does not offer any further reason, trusting that that may be deemed sufficient.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3B to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3C.—(Lord Rooker.)
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says about the Commons' privilege, and I am bound to say that I find this an extraordinary reason. Our amendment does nothing about the revenue support grant for local authorities. It does nothing at all about any of the money that the Government are giving to local authorities.
  The argument that we have used all the way through is that the amendment marginally changes the Government's right to redistribute capital already in the ownership of the local authorities to other local authorities that the Government prefer. That was the argument that we made yesterday, and is the basis of the amendment. I had a query yesterday about the amendment on minimum reserves. We must bow to what the Commons puts forward, but I am bound to say that it is an odd argument to make to stop the amendment in its tracks.
  We had a disagreement yesterday about how much money was involved. The Minister eventually had to concede that my figure of £120 million was correct and that that was what we were talking about. We were also talking about the right of local authorities to have an idea of what their capital will be spent on, and to not have the money snaffled away from them if they are not in the Government's eyes, as authorities in need, to be able to make a decision that the money should be used for—most likely—housing requirements for key workers, affordable housing and repairs to housing within their own areas.
  We have made the point over and again during the passage of the Bill, and have been unable to move the Government, either in this or another place. We have been supported throughout by the Liberal Democrats, who have taken the same view. We will have been supported by local government across the country, and not only those who would be involved in the "set aside" or those who are debt-free. I hope that the Minister realises that the Government's position is not welcome. It is not one from which they will get any thanks at all from local government.
  I believe that I am right in saying that the Liberal Democrats also recognise that we are probably at the end of the road so far as the matter is concerned. Royal Assent is due this afternoon. Because we have this extraordinarily messy sitting of the House—we have had two weeks on, and now have two weeks off—it is
  1080
  impossible to continue a flow on the Bill. I do not propose to take the matter any further, but it is with a heavy heart that I say that the Government, on this as on one or two other measures, will not gain any kudos from what they have done. I believe that those who have been in opposition to it have had a moral and right argument all the way through.
  Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness. We have failed to convince the Government on the issue. It is disappointing that, during the progress of the Bill, the Minister tried to mollify us on one of our concerns, which was that local authorities that, we believed, had housing need, would have money taken away from them. The Minister said that if there really was housing need in those authorities, the money would go back to them. What a way to do it. If I read the figures correctly, some of those authorities from which the Government plan to take away a large amount of money will be giving quite small amounts of money back to the Government. If the Government then decide that they have housing need, they will send that money back again. That seems to take bureaucracy to an incredible level and to be really rather unnecessary.
  The Government certainly win accolades for setting up new bureaucracies, arid that scheme will end up being another example. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to reassure us on the issue or whether he will report back to us at any stage on what happens to that money.
  It is particularly sad to see that provision in the Bill. So many freedoms have been given to local authorities. We all agree that we want to see local authorities being able to operate freely to do what they think is right in their areas. However, so much bureaucracy has gone with some of those freedoms. That is incredibly disappointing, and we have another example before US.
  Nevertheless, I am not a lawyer, and I have to abide by what others say must happen in this place. We will have to accept the Commons amendment, but I hope that the situation that I fear will not happen. It would be a waste of central and local government's time.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Baronesses are still annoyed and disagree with this part of the Bill but will not take their opposition any further. I shall make two brief points to set the record straight.
  First, I realise that we have argued about the amount of money involved, but as I said yesterday, the amendment sent by this place to another place and rejected would have removed the set-aside arrangements that already exist. The amount of money involved is £1.2 billion, not simply the £120 million for debt-free authorities.
  Secondly, we are told that we will receive no thanks from local government. We are not looking for thanks; we are looking for partnership and goodwill. Everybody is aware that the major and substantive changes that the Bill brings about in the financial arrangements for local government, which we all want

  1081
  to see operating from the start of the next financial year in April, cannot take place unless the Bill receives Royal Assent today—not tomorrow nor next month. If it does not receive Royal Assent today, those changes, as was pointed out by the Minister last night, cannot come into force until April 2005, not 2004, which is what we all require. It is absolutely crucial that Royal Assent is given today.
  It is a free country; it is still a free House. Noble Lords can send the Bill back if they wish and the Commons can have another look at it. They have chosen not to do that, which is sensible in the circumstances. Their arguments have been put on record. The Government will be thoroughly accountable for the mechanism that we use in Clause 11. Parliamentary Questions and debates will elucidate exactly what happens with pooling and the way in which the money is distributed. It is not as though nobody will be able to find out what exactly the Government do in implementing the legislation.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill
12.54 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Elton) in the Chair.]
Clause 93 [Defendant's had character]:
[Amendments Nos. 143 to 143C not moved.]
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 144:
Page 62, line 29, at end insert "nor if the potential probative value of such evidence is so outweighed by its prejudicial effect"
The noble Lord said: We have already expressed our view about the importance of including a requirement of relevance in Clause 93. We have also expressed our support for a general rule excluding bad character evidence, subject of course to exceptions, rather than a general inclusionary rule, as favoured by the Government, subject to a discretion to exclude. Therefore, I shall not return to those topics in my remarks in support of Amendments Nos. 144 and 145.
On Amendment No. 144, which states,
"nor if the potential probative value of such evidence is so outweighed by its prejudicial effect",
I need do no more than remind the Minister of her speech in your Lordships' House, last Monday in Committee, at col. 752 of Hansard:
"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
1082
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".—[Official Report, 15/6/03; col. 752.]
If that is so, can I take it that the Minister is quite content with the terms of Amendment No. 144? There could be no harm, but positive benefit, in including it in the Bill if that is the jurisprudence which has already been developed by the courts.
Amendment No. 145 would define the expressions "probative value" and "prejudicial effect". It is clearly set out in the Marshalled List. In the interests of brevity, I do not feel it necessary to express any further views about each item in that amendment at this stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall adopt the noble Lord's telegraphic style and say in answer to him on Amendment No. 144 that less is more. Our position is expressly set out. The statement to which the noble Lord referred set out the Government's position, and it was clearly expressed. We stand by that as our proper interpretation. Further amendment to the drafting of the Bill is therefore not necessary. The noble Lord will know that the comments that I have made, and, I hope, the clarity with which I have expressed our understanding, should be capable of being used for interpretative purposes, so as to avoid any difficulty arising on another occasion. Unless the noble Lord wishes me to elucidate further—I assure him that I have at least 20 minutes' worth of argument—I do not intend to respond further.
Lord Kingsland: I have only one observation to make on what the noble Baroness has said. I entirely accept that the courts have implied in the relevant section or paragraph of PACE that the probative, prejudicial test applies. However, PACE serves a different function in our criminal law from the function that Clause 93 is intended to serve.
It is conceivable, therefore, that despite the interpretation of PACE in the way the Minister suggests, there might still be a danger that a court would take a different view about the same expression in the context of Clause 93, in particular, and the Bill in general. I, therefore, see no reason why the Minister, if she is so confident of the interpretation she expressed last Monday, should not be prepared to put the expression on the face of the Bill.
1 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I should add a few more words in the hope that that might satisfy the noble Lord. I shall try to reassure the Committee that the concerns behind the amendment are misplaced. That is because, as the noble Lord has demonstrated, there is little difference between us in terms of the substance. It is our intention that the test should consist of a balance between probative value and prejudicial effect and it may help if I make this point absolutely clear.
The test for the court to apply under Clause 93(3) as it stands is designed to reflect the existing position under the common law, as Section 78 of the Police and

1083
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 does, under which the judge balances the probative value of the evidence against the prejudicial effect of admitting it and excludes the evidence where the prejudice exceeds the probative value.
The Government's intention is for the courts to apply the fairness test in this legislation in the same way and this is the intended effect of the clause. In applying the test to evidence admissible under Clause 93(1)(d), the court will balance the probative value of the convictions—that is, the extent to which they are relevant to the issues in the case—against any prejudicial effect of admitting them.
The question therefore is one of drafting. The current wording draws on that adopted in Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and is therefore a statutory formulation with which the courts are already familiar. Case law has clearly established that that section encompasses the common law power to exclude evidence whose probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. We consider it desirable to have on the face of the legislation a familiar test that achieves our intention, rather than introducing new language.
On the other hand, the amendment would introduce a new statutory formulation. This would, no doubt, give rise to lengthy arguments as to what exactly the test is intended to be. Both the noble Lord and I know of the ingenuity of the Bar of England and Wales, and the delight which many have in testing and teasing out these differences.
To give one example, the wording of the amendment states that,
"the potential probative value of such evidence is so outweighed by its prejudicial effect"
that it ought not to be admitted. The words "so outweighed" would doubtless prompt a great deal of case law and uncertainty as to its meaning. Does it mean that the prejudicial effect simply outweighs the probative value? Or must it outweigh it to a certain degree? If so, by what degree is it acceptable for the prejudicial effect to outweigh the probative value before it is excluded? Such debates would be highly undesirable and we believe it is far better to pursue a well-established and well-understood test.
I hope that that explanation will suffice. If the noble Lord wishes me to go even further, I am happy to do so.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The Minister implied that the test was to be as it is at present, but is that what is achieved by Clause 93? She will remember the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, when we previously discussed the matter on the words "such an adverse effect". Do those words exist in the present test, or has the Minister, by Clause 93(3), changed the balance of proof?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In Clause 93(3), we have made it clear that:
"The court must not admit evidence under subsection (1)(d), (e) or (f) 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".
That is to preserve the ability of the court to weigh the difference between the probative and the prejudicial.
Clause 90 provides the definition of "had character" in order to put these matters on to a statutory basis. Prior to the amendments that we discussed on the last occasion the Government intended to cast that net very wide indeed because we were removing the common law rules which would have constrained. For that purpose, we wanted all those issues to be subject to the new statutory scheme on an inclusive basis, and then leave the issue to the judge who would be charged with balancing the issues of fairness to make the determination.
We appreciate—which is why we see Clause 93(3)—that the probative nature of the evidence will be of importance when determining whether and to what extent the defendant's bad character should be admitted into evidence. It is right that the judge, in exercising his role almost as "manager" of the judicial process so as to make sure that there is a fairness arid equality of arms, should have the opportunity in exercising discretion pursuant to Clause 93(3) to weigh the prejudicial and the probative, one against the other.
Lord Renton: The noble Baroness has made a valiant attempt to justify the use of the expression "bad character". In Clause 93, we are talking about the defendant's bad character. Under present law as I have always understood it, and I have had a lot of experience of it, previous convictions were the only evidence of had character that the prosecution could produce. There are many kinds of bad character, but they are indefinable. Chapter 1 and Part 11 of the Bill do not make a strong attempt to define "bad character".
Can the Minister help us on this issue? After all, it has an important effect on the meaning of Clause 93 and indeed of other clauses in the chapter.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: On the previous occasion, we debated these issues in relation to Clause 90 at length. Indeed, we took some time together to look at the jurisprudence that currently exists and compare it to the various subsections of Clause 93, which are there enumerated.
It was suggested that issues of character are narrowly drawn, but perhaps I may invite the noble Lord to look at the debates we had on that occasion. We enjoyed a detailed discussion of the current jurisprudence, which showed the wider ambits that we now have. As I said, Clause 93(3) preserves the opportunity for the court to make that determination. I suppose that there is a change in emphasis because,

1085
in the past, the rules were designed to exclude evidence, except where there could be special conditions upon which it could be included. Now, the coin is the other way round. There is an ability to include evidence unless exclusion is merited.
However, whichever way the coin is turned, we say that one arrives mainly at the same place. The fairness of the proceedings will be the determining factor: the evidence should be admitted if its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect and, conversely, it should be excluded if its prejudicial effect would outweigh its probative value.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: The noble Baroness has just stated the existing law with perfect accuracy. However, it is not clear to me, and, if I may say so, it has become increasingly unclear as the debate has proceeded, what function Clause 93 is intended to serve. Is it intended to change the existing law or is it not? If the emphasis is still to be on the judge having a duty to weigh probative value against prejudicial effect, that is the existing law. One can talk about a change of emphasis, and so on, but ultimately, as the noble Baroness said, it will come to the same thing. It is not at all clear what purpose Clause 93—or, indeed, this whole chapter—will achieve. Why not leave it to the common law?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: One difficulty is that there has been a great breadth of difference in the way these provisions have been interpreted. If one considers the argument that has ranged, on the one hand the Government have said, "We are changing the balance. It is a nuanced balance but, none the less, it is to encourage and enable the court to include evidence which should properly be included and put before the jury to determine". We have had an exclusionary approach in the past but we are changing that in terms of emphasis. However, we are retaining the core principle, which is necessary for fairness—namely, to balance the two. We are modernising the approach and bringing it together in one place.
Therefore, there is obviously opportunity to broaden the concept. But Clause 93 should be capable of bringing about greater clarity in relation to those rules. In its report, the Law Commission underscored very clearly that this was not only a very complex area but one which merited a new look and a statutory framework. One will see that theme running through its report. We have sought to bring about that statutory framework and to bring clarity in terms of how it should be operated.
Some say that there is a huge difference between the approach being inclusionary or exclusionary. We, the Government, do not say that that is so. We believe that it is an issue of emphasis, and we trust that the judiciary will be able to operate within the statutory framework in a way that will guarantee fairness and parity, as has been the case in the past.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I believe there is much to be said for the amendment as it seeks to introduce words with which we are all familiar. What I do not understand is whether the Minister is saying that it is unnecessary to introduce those words because they are included within subsection (3) by virtue of the meaning, that has been given to them in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is precisely what I am saying.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: In that case, why not say so expressly? I can find no reference to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act here.
1.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am so sorry. I beg your Lordships' pardon. I believe that I am over-tired and I almost forgot that I was standing up, which was a great discourtesy when the noble and learned Lord was standing. I beg his pardon.
As I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the phraseology has been accepted as good law and it is well understood and well used. We are replicating that. I hear a noble Lord asking from a sedentary position, "Why change it?" I ask the same question of the noble Lord because those words are used in Section 78. We are not changing it. We are keeping the same phraseology, which is well understood and easily capable of being identified. We believe that that is perfectly fine.
Lord Kingsland: I am extremely pleased to hear from the noble Baroness that Amendment No. 144 is unnecessary because it will be implied into the jurisprudence under Clause 93(3) when, as undoubtedly it will be, it is considered by the courts in future.
However, I should not like the noble Baroness to believe that the Opposition accept that the changes made by Clause 93 are marginal. They seem to me to be radical in two respects: first, we now have a general inclusionary rule, rather than a general exclusionary rule; and, secondly, that inclusionary rule is subject to a discretion to exclude only in three of the eight cases—that is, in subsections (1)(d), (1)(e) or (1)(h) of Clause 93. That is a matter which we believe should be reconsidered on Report in the light of what the noble Baroness said today.
A number of commentators have referred to Clause 93 as the "round up the usual suspects" rule. That phrase was made famous—indeed, immortalized—by Captain Renault in the well-known film "Casablanca". I suppose that those who have seen the film several times might like to add somewhere in the Bill the first part of Captain Renault's sentence:
"Major Strasser has been shot".
Perhaps that should be the title of Chapter 11. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 93 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ackner: I have only this comment to make. I believe that this clause requires such drafting that it will be far more convenient to start from the beginning. I have one particular problem. Clause 93(3) states:
"The court must not admit evidence under",
and it then sets out the method of deciding whether it should admit it. But that is confined to paragraphs (d), (e) or (h). I do not understand why paragraphs (b), (c), (f) or (g) should not require the same test to be applied. Why has the limitation been restricted to paragraphs (d), (e) or (h)? If I knew the reason for that I would be able better to reflect on the merits or demerits of Clause 93 stand part. Perhaps the Minister could provide that explanation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We find the whole of this clause objectionable for the reasons mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland; that is, it is now inclusive rather than exclusive. We also feel that had it not been for the alarums of this morning, we would have been in a position to move Amendments Nos. 143A to C, which deal with some of the points raised by the noble and learned Lord. The whole of the drafting of this clause is objectionable in principle. Accordingly, in due course we on these Benches shall carefully consider it on Report.
Lord Renton: I too support the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The Government should seriously reconsider the whole of Chapter 1 in Part 11. Clause 93 has been criticised so much and is so difficult that I believe the Government should consider replacing it or leaving it out altogether.
The expression "bad character" is not defined in the Bill. It is a very vague, wide expression. Opinions differ as to what is bad character. Some people condemn natural behaviour, which is not very serious, as bad character. In any event, we should bear in mind that this clause will apply not only to deciding whether or not the accused is guilty; if he is found guilty, it will also be relevant to sentence. Therefore, vast prejudice could result. I hope that the Government will, as has been suggested, reconsider this clause and either replace it or do away with it altogether.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall come straight to the questions asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in terms of understanding why we differentiate between the specific subsections outlined in Clause 93(3). Clause 93(1)(a) and (b) both concern instances where the defendant seeks to adduce evidence in pursuance of his or her own defence. We have taken it that it would be proper for that evidence to be so admitted.
1088
Clause 93(1)(c) covers important explanatory evidence. As noble Lords will know only too well, the common law already recognises that evidence of bad character can be admitted outside the similar fact rule as background evidence. We touched on that in an earlier debate. It is quite difficult to describe this evidence as probative because, strictly speaking, it does not prove an issue relating to guilt but sets other evidence in context. Therefore, seeking to admit this evidence—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Does the Minister not agree that although it may be admissible explanatory material as she has explained—she has previously led us to the case law on that—there is still a discretion for the court to exclude evidence on the basis that its probative value is less than its prejudicial effect? Why is there the change here?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We believe that if we are setting up a statutory new scheme we have to have a certain precision with language. One of the main criticisms of our past rule was that it lacked precision and clarity. We are seeking to imbue the Bill with precision and clarity. In arguing to not include such evidence, we are really saying that we are seeking to admit this evidence under Clause 93(1)(c) in a separate category. Historically, there has never been a disaggregation between evidence which is included as background and that which is included as bad character. In this section we are seeking to disagreggate those two elements, which have hitherto been conjoined.
Therefore, because of that difficulty, we are seeking to admit this evidence under Clause 93(1)(c). Seeking to admit the background evidence under Clause 93(1)(e) would perpetuate difficulties that the common law has encountered. Instead, we believe that that evidence should be separately recognised and admissible. So Clause 93(1)(c) therefore 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.
Clause 93(1)(d) is subject to Clause (93)(3). I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
Lord Kingsland: I apologise to the noble Baroness. As usual, she is extremely courteous in giving way. Before she leaves (c) perhaps I may make an observation about the relationship between precision and discretion in legislation. The noble Baroness lamented the lack of precision in this branch of the law. I suggest that the reason why it may appear to lack precision is because this is an area which has pre-eminently fallen within the discretionary power of criminal judges. They have had to consider a long line of issues on the facts and draw conclusions from them.
The noble Baroness now seeks to give more precision; but in doing so is removing the discretion that the judges used to have. As the noble Lord rightly said, under subsection 1(c) the judge will no longer have the discretion to exclude. So of course the legislation will have more precision in that respect.

1089
However, with the greatest possible respect to the noble Baroness, I suggest that that is a substantial reduction in the rights of a defendant in a criminal trial. In a country which has always prided itself on those rights, I view that as a serious threat to what has been guaranteed over many decades, and in some cases centuries, by the common law.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: To avoid the Minister replying straight away, perhaps I may add to that. We are referring to evidence of bad character. Subsection (1) starts by referring to admission of evidence of bad character. It may be that such evidence is admitted because bad character is explanatory material, but there is a clear discretion at present for the judge to exclude that if its prejudicial effect exceeds its probative value.
The result of the way in which this clause is drafted—the Minister's reply suggests that this has not been thought through—is that there could be evidence of bad character, which is only background material but is admissible even though its prejudicial effect is much greater than its probative value as explanatory material. That cannot be right or fair. Unless this is amended and reconsidered, it must be excluded under Article 6.1
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not agree. Clause 94 sets out what falls within the category "important explanatory evidence". A judge hearing and dealing with the case will be able to determine whether the evidence on which the prosecution seeks to rely can properly fall within the definition of "explanatory". Clause 94 states:
"For the purposes of section 93(1)(c) evidence is important explanatory evidence if—

(a) without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case, and

(b) its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial".

It is perfectly possible for defending counsel, exercising his duty—as he must—to say about an application by the prosecution for the submission of evidence that falls within this category—Clause 93(1)(c)—that the evidence upon which the prosecution seek to rely falls outwith the definition in Clause 94(a) or (b). That is a proper argument that can be made on behalf of the defence. If the court feels that the evidence cannot be included and that Clause 94(a) and/or (b) is not satisfied, of course it is still open to the judge to exclude it.
In pursuance of the suggestion made by the Law Commission, we have tried to get some clarity, some certainty about the way with which these matters are dealt. That is the rationale behind the disaggregation that I have just outlined.
1090
The judge's responsibility—be he lay or professional—to manage the case in accordance with those rules and in accordance with fairness and justice is absolutely plain and contained and referred to in the provisions.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I—
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may continue. I hope I have answered the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Kingsland. We have gone through the matter on several occasions. I should be most grateful if I could continue this section and finish answering the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Then of course I shall give way and answer any questions that noble Lords may wish to ask. It would be a courtesy to me if I could just conclude this part.
Clause 93(1)(f) states that the evidence is admissible if,
"it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant".
There is the direct reference to probative value. One therefore does not need the refutation upon which one subsequently has to rely in Clause 93(3).
The other issue is on Clause 93(1)(g). Evidence under paragraph (g) would be rebuttal evidence to be called in order to disprove, or to set in the right context, evidence put in by the defence, which the prosecution seeks to rebut.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: In dealing with Clause 93(1)(c)—the words "important explanatory evidence"—the Minister said that it would be the duty of defence counsel to object when an application was made by the prosecution to introduce such evidence. There is no longer a requirement on the prosecution to apply to put in such evidence. Clauses 93 and 94 do not require the leave of the courts, as I understand it, for the introduction of that evidence. So when the noble Baroness says that it is the duty of defence counsel to object, when the prosecution makes an application, she is, I say with great respect, mistaken on the effect of the clauses.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It was a laxity of language or an imprecision on my part. The noble Lord will know that the defence is served with all evidence upon which the prosecution intends to rely, whether by way of used or unused material. If the prosecution serves that evidence, it is always open to the defence to say, "This evidence should be properly excluded because it falls outwith any of the rules of admissibility of evidence before the court". Therefore, if the defence has been served with evidence under Clause 93(1)(c), which it feels falls outside the terms of Clause 94(a) and (b), and that the prosecution is not entitled to adduce it under the other provisions of Clause 93, it could say to the judge, "The prosecution seek to suggest that this can properly be included under Clause 93(1)(c). We disagree because we believe

1091
that Clause 94(a) and (b) have not been so satisfied, and you should exercise your discretion and exclude it"
I apologise for saying "on application". It would not he an application, but it would be possible for the defence properly to make those submissions on behalf of the defendant and for the judge to so determine.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: That is absolutely right. If the defence knows that the prosecution intends to adduce evidence, they can have an argument as to whether it comes within Clause 93(1)(c)—whether it is "important explanatory material". That can happen now. But, if the judge decides that it does, that is the end of it. The judge cannot say, "Yes, it is important explanatory material, but it has huge prejudicial effect". That is the point.
At the moment there are two decisions to be made: first, is it explanatory material and, secondly, weighing in the balance the prejudicial effect against the probative value, is it fair to allow the prosecution to adduce it? The Government are just getting rid of that second test altogether. The judge may be sitting there, thinking, "I am presiding over an unfair trial. It is important explanatory material, but if I were allowed to carry out the test that I can at the moment, I would most certainly exclude it: it is leading to unfairness". The Minister may not have appreciated that, and certainly those who drafted the clause have not appreciated it.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I invite the noble Lord to look at the wording of Clause 94(a). It states:
"without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case".
That is a high threshold. I repeat:
"would find it impossible or difficult … and"—
not "or"—
"its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial".
So, a fairly high watermark must be satisfied before the judge would be satisfied that the evidence falls within that which could properly be described as "explanatory evidence". We have other provisions under Clause 93(1)(d) and particularly (e). There is an argument that one should simply put them both in (e):
"it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution".
We say that there is a difference between evidence that does not go to proof of guilt but goes to explanation and evidence that goes to guilt. That disaggregation is helpful in the interests of justice in order to get a proper balanced trial.
Therefore, I understand the nature of the comment made about probative value. In response, the Government say that the appropriate test on admissibility and evidential worth is to be found in Clause 94(a) and (b). That is the test that will apply to Clause 93(1)(c).
Lord Thomas of Gresford: For the record, in order to assist judges who may have to interpret this clause if it passes, will the Minister confirm that Clause 94
1092
demands a very high probative value before explanatory material can be adduced—rather more than at the moment, where the balance is being struck?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I have tried to express myself with a modicum of precision. I have already said that it is very difficult to describe the explanatory evidence as probative, because strictly speaking it does not prove an issue relating to guilt. It sets other evidence in context. The appropriate threshold for that contextual evidence is to be found in Clause 94.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The evidence may not be probative in the sense that she describes, but it can certainly be prejudicial. We could take the example of two people who are alleged to have committed a crime. One pleads guilty and is not in the dock; and the other pleads not guilty but is in the dock. It is extremely difficult to explain the background to the crime without talking about the second participant. That is an example of a situation in which the prosecution may press very hard to exercise Clause 93(1)(c).
The judge may conclude that the prejudicial effect of allowing that evidence in—the fact that the second party had already pleaded guilty—far outweighed its probative value. Yet, under this subsection, there is nothing whatsoever that the judge could do to stop the inclusion of the evidence; because in this particular set of circumstances it might be very difficult for a jury to understand other evidence unless they knew that a second party had participated in the alleged crime.
Lord Dubs: I have been following the discussion very carefully and intervene to ask my noble friend a question. What difference would it make if Clause 93(3) were widened to include Clause 93(1)(c)—if the second test mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, were also to apply? It seems to me that that would not weaken in any way what the Government seek to do.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In response to my noble friend, the whole point of creating a new statutory arrangement in this area is to bring together jurisprudence, which has developed over a very long time, and the way in which common law rules have interacted with the various statutory provisions over a period of time. This is our opportunity to bring all the provisions into one quite succinct place and express it with as great a clarity as we can to make sure that the ways in which these rules are applied are comprehensive across the piece. That is the Government's intent.
Of course, I hear the strong views expressed by others who would like to construct things differently. I have sought to explain why, in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the Government have fashioned things in this way. I hope that I have succeeded in doing so. We are not complacent about the issues that will be engaged by the nature of Clause 93. However, the test is only one of a number of ways in which the safety and fairness of trials are protected.

1093
The scheme includes other safeguards that I shall outline in due course to ensure that defendants' interests are given appropriate consideration. Therefore, we have not applied the exclusionary test to circumstances when defendants' interests are properly safeguarded in some other way and there would be no proper role for that test to play. That is the rationale behind what we have done.
I can accept that noble Lords may not agree, but I hope that I have explained with a modicum of clarity why the Government are doing what they are currently minded to do.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: The Minister explained the Government's position very clearly, but would she bear it in mind that this is one of the very points to which the Lord Chief Justice drew attention in his paper? A problem will arise because it is said that the provision will not allow the general discretion of the judge to exclude prejudicial evidence in these circumstances. That is one of the things that is worrying the judiciary. I do hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We have very much taken into account what the noble and learned Lord says; and, indeed, what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said in relation to these concerns. That is why we have tried to explain it as fully as possible. We have also tried to reassure noble Lords. The noble and learned Lord knows well that we have been able to rely on the sagacity of our judges and on the faithful discharge of their duties to ensure that that which is in accordance with fairness and justice is actually done in relation to the admission of evidence.
Noble Lords also know that this category of inclusion of evidence has been well established for some time. The judges of England and Wales are very experienced in determining whether evidence falls within the specific category of being necessary for the explanation. We therefore expect that judges exercising their discretion pursuant to Clause 93(1)(c) in conjunction with Clause 94 will be able to discharge their duty and ensure that there is a fair trial, without doing violence to the necessity to have before the jury the sort of evidence needed to make an informed judgment.
It is sometimes difficult because one has to treat juries with respect. They need the tools to make informed judgments. They will judge the facts. We know that this evidence has been of assistance in the past because that is why new approaches have developed in jurisprudence—inclusionary information that has hitherto been excluded can now be admitted in evidence so that juries can make sense of the whole package presented to them.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: I have listened very carefully to the noble Baroness's explanations in the past few minutes, which were given with great precision and clarity. However, as one of the noble
1094
Lords present who is not a lawyer, there is one thing that I cannot get out of my mind. We have been repeatedly told, not only in this House, but also in the public launch of the Bill, that one of its purposes is to shift the balance of the criminal justice system—in favour of the victim, by implication—against the alleged criminal. That means that every time the Minister says that the purpose of a particular clause is to bring the established principles of jurisprudence together with statute law and common law, I am left with the question whether part of its purpose is not also to play its part in shifting the balance in the way that it was proposed the Bill would do.
It would help me greatly if, on each clause, the Minister could say, for example, "This is introduced purely for organising legal inheritance purposes and plays no part in the shifting of the balance". Otherwise, in common with other Members of the Committee, I shall continue to suspect, however clear the explanation, that any clause forms part of the equipment for shifting the balance, which is the fundamental aspect of the Bill. I hope that I make myself clear.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the right reverend Prelate's remarks about what the media have said and how they have presented it outside the House. Regrettably, I have no control over how anyone other than me expresses the provisions. The Government seek parity, fairness and justice, and the delivery of justice in a clear, understandable, recognised way to those who participate in, and rely on, the justice system.
It is right that there is a perception that the balance has been put far too much in favour of the defendant, and not properly in favour of the victim. Our jurisprudence has developed in a sound way. The Bill seeks to set out the position clearly so that we all have the same starting point, giving scope for further development. But the fundamental principles of what Clause 93 does are in our jurisprudence already.
We hope that we will now have the clarity and precision to enable us to say, "In one place, you will be able to see what we have said for the defendant and for the prosecution. That legislation provides the balance and the clear exposition of the position". We know that the jurisprudence will continue to develop in accordance with our common law. The best way of saying with clarity, not only to those responsible for administering the justice system, but to those affected by it, is that we have the balance right and it is here in one place. The legislation will provide in one place the answer to the arguments and debates about whether victims are getting a proper, fair deal, whether defendants are properly protected, whether the system works and whether it is balanced. I do not know whether that will silence those who continue to rage about the issues. All I can say is that the Government are doing their best.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: Perhaps it will assist the noble Baroness if I suggest that, when the measure reaches Third Reading, instead of having the abstract discussion that has occurred today, in which she has

1095
acquitted herself brilliantly, she could introduce an element of what one might call brass tacks on the matter of balance. Either the Bill makes a significant change to the balance between the prosecution and the defence in a criminal trial or it does not.
There may or may not be justification in some cases for moving the balance towards the prosecution. To cope with the question, one needs specific examples. To test the merit of Clause 93 and so forth, we need a specific example of a case. We need, for example, a case concerned with allegedly important explanatory evidence that would probably be ruled out by the judge as inadmissible at common law, but that would go in under the Bill, and where it is desirable that it should do. With such a concrete example, one would be in a far better position to form a view of whether the provisions had any merit.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand what the noble and learned Lord says in that regard. I shall see whether I can return with some case studies as he describes. One of our difficulties, not in the debate in this Chamber, but elsewhere, has been that every time one side of the debate says, "We want this to be included in Clause 93", the other side says, "But it is already possible" and the Government say, "Yes, it is". That debate is happening now. We have put everything in one place to enable concision.
I am happy that we should continue that debate. I will see what can be done, but I think that the debate will continue on Report, not in Committee. I hope, therefore, that Members of the Committee will take into account the expansive nature of today's debate so that we can hone any further debate on Report to only that which is absolutely necessary.
Lord Kingsland: I admire the perspicacity of the intervention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke. It is notable that, although the explanatory memorandum devotes quite a lot of illustrative space to other clauses, its contribution to the explanation of what Clause 94 means is especially spare. It consists, in paragraph 335, of two lines:
"Clause 94 defines what is meant by important explanatory evidence. The definition mirrors that used in the context of non-defendants".
It would be extremely helpful if, on Report, when we will undoubtedly return to Clause 94, the Government provided greater detail about the factual situations in which the provision applies.
Lord Ackner: The extensive interrogation of the noble Baroness over the past 40 minutes seems to give great weight to the observation by the Lord Chief Justice on evidence of bad character, at paragraph 13 in his supplementary note. He expressed his own view and that of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division as follows:
"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
1096
convictions being overturned. Evidence that would previously have been considered neither admissible nor relevant will apparently be treated as both admissible and relevant".
In regard to the noble Baroness's specific answers to the problems which confronted me, I do not understand yet why the other paragraphs, to which I have drawn attention, should not come within subsection (3). I never drew attention to paragraph (a) for obvious reasons—the parties have agreed. In paragraph (b), the evidence can be adduced by virtue of cross-examination, which could be cross-examination that would not now be permitted. No restriction is placed on the cross-examination. Apparently, we will have the possibility of situations in which, hitherto, the judge would say, "No, Mr Brown, I don't think I should follow that course", seeking to protect the defendant from excessive prejudice. It may be a case in which the judge himself would warn the defendant, and not proceed further with a line because it lets in cross-examination or the defendant's record.
Clause 93(1)(c) states,
"it is important explanatory evidence".
So it could be, but the test of probative value and prejudice is perfectly appropriate to that. The same applies to paragraphs (f) and (g). We should have further material by the time we come to Report stage. Therefore, I do not seek to divide the Committee.
Clause 93 agreed to.
Clause 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Offences "of the same description" or "of the Sallie category"]:
2 p.m.
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 146:
Page 63, line 4, leave out paragraph (b)
The noble Lord said: We have already debated the—
Lord Ackner: Perhaps I may inquire which piece of information is right: that is, that we will not go on this Bill beyond 4 p.m. or that we could go on until 6 p.m.? I am in the unhappy position of having a wife who cannot he left alone. I have certainly covered the position until 4.30 p.m. Should I cover the position beyond that?
Lord Davies of Oldham: Through the usual channels, it is the intention, and it has been agreed, that we should go until 6 p.m. on this Bill.
Lord Kingsland: The substance of Amendment No. 146, as it relates to Clause 93(1)(d), has already been discussed as a consequence of earlier amendments. The noble Baroness will be aware that the observations made from this side of the House were that Clause 95(1)(b) would allow offences that had nothing whatever to do with the offence with which a person is charged to be brought in evidence against them.
The noble Baroness has, most courteously, already given Members of the Committee the benefit of her views on that aspect. Therefore, I do not propose to

1097
provoke her again in that respect today. The only point that remains is to ask about the way in which subsection (1) is intended to be implemented by the Secretary of State.
I am extremely concerned that the category of offences stipulated in Clause 95(1)(b) is a matter not for the Bill, but for an order made by the Secretary of State. My concern deepens when I look to the way in which "category" is defined in Clause 95(2), which states:
"A category prescribed by an order under this section must consist of offences of the same type".
On turning to the Explanatory Notes to seek a definition of "the same type", I find that it is exceedingly wide.
In my submission, the discretion given to the Secretary of State in these circumstances is a discretion that the Committee should not permit. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I support my noble friend Lord Kingsland. It seems extraordinary that in Clause 95 the Secretary of State is given the power to categorise offences in any way he wishes for the purpose of that clause. It goes on to say that the offences must be,
"offences of the same type",
which invites the question: what are offences "of the same type"?
Following on from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, said, I ask: is an offence of theft "of the same type" as an offence of robbery? Is it or is it not? The only difference is that there is an additional requirement in an offence of robbery that may not be present in an offence of theft from the person. Is theft an offence of a similar nature to an offence of burglary if the intention is to steal money? If I take money from someone's pocket, am I committing an offence of the same type as if I walk into his house and take it off a kitchen table? What do the words "same type" mean? How wide do they go?
It could be argued that many offences are of the same type if their intention is similar. In some ways, it is the intention of the person carrying out the offence that makes it an offence of a similar type to one which he may commit with the same intention but by a different means. Therefore, does it mean that if a man in his mid-40s commits on one occasion an offence of burglary, or he is charged with an offence of burglary, that the prosecution would be entitled to introduce evidence that at the age of 16 he had had a conviction for theft against him?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for indicating that he has had quite enough of me on Clause 93. I thank him for his charity. I hope that I shall be able to clarify, to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, how we currently see Clause 95(1)(b) and what will be included in an order.
Amendment No. 146 has been tabled as a consequence of Clause 95(1)(b), but it is important to make it clear that the paragraph does not confer
1098
admissibility. That is governed by Clause 93. Its sole function is to define an offence of the same category. Without this provision, it would leave an offence of the same category entirely undefined, which I know that noble Lords would find undesirable.
Clause 95(1)(b) is therefore a paving provision, as noble Lords have indicated. The intention is that the presumption created by Clause 93(1)(d) should apply to convictions for offences that are similar to the one with which the defendant is charged, as to previous convictions for the same offence.
We consider that the most straightforward way of achieving this is to make provision for categories which can be drawn up and considered in more detail in that context. By virtue of Clause 299(5), an order prescribing a category or categories of offences will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and therefore to active parliamentary scrutiny. We shall have an opportunity to look more specifically at these issues.
Our current view is that an offence is of the same description as another if the statement of the offence in an information or indictment would be the same. In plain language, this covers convictions for the same offence. Thus where a person is charged with theft or rape, only a conviction for those same offences would be covered by this provision.
It is worth noting that the statement of the offence in an information or indictment relates to the particular law that has been broken as opposed to the circumstances of the offence. Therefore there need not be a specific coincidence in the circumstances of the offence, although clearly the extent to which any dissimilarity affects the probative value of the evidence will need to be taken into account when assessing that probative value against its prejudicial effect under Clause 93(3). An offence is in the same category as another if they both come within a category which has been prescribed for this purpose by the Secretary of State. When we have the prescribed schedule, we shall be able, using the affirmative resolution procedure, to consider and debate what should or should not be included therein.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her clear response. I hope she will forgive me if I say that I derive little comfort from her reassurances about the affirmative procedure. As the noble Baroness will be well aware, your Lordships' House will not have the opportunity to amend the contents of a draft affirmative document. It must be either completely accepted or completely rejected; and the precedents for rejecting such documents laid before your Lordships are extremely rare.
By contrast, if the categories appeared on the face of the Bill, your Lordships' House would have the opportunity to amend the list presented. We would be, therefore, in a much more powerful position to deal with the matter during the course of the Bill than we will thereafter.
It is often the custom for the Government, while a Bill is being considered, to place before your Lordships' House a draft of some of the statutory

1099
instruments that they intend to make under the Bill. I should like to invite the noble Baroness to place such a draft before your Lordships' House on Report so that we can see clearly what the Government have in mind in making future rules under this subsection. I wonder whether the noble Baroness wishes to respond to that suggestion?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I wished to make sure that my initial reaction would accord with my instructions. I am happy to say that it does. Noble Lords will understand that time may be short, but we shall use our best endeavours to meet the noble Lord's request.
Lord Kingsland: I greatly appreciate the helpfulness of the noble Baroness in this respect. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clauses 96 to 100 agreed to.
2.15 p.m.
Clause 101 [Offences committed by defendant when a child]:
Baroness Seccombemoved Amendment No. 146A:
Page 65, line 47, at end insert "in the following circumstances, namely—

(a) the prosecution can show continuous or persistent commission of similar offences by the defendant since the time that he first committed them, or

(b) the defence has introduced evidence of the defendant's experiences before the age of 14"

The noble Baroness said: The amendment relates to Clause 101, which is entitled:
"Offences committed by a defendant when a child".
It repeals Sections 16(2) and (3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963. Subsections (2) and (3) concern offences committed by children and ensure that over-21 year-olds do not have convictions from when they were under 14 years of age brought up in later trials.
I believe that the clause as it stands would place an unfair burden on those who may have made mistakes in the past. Fourteen years old and under is a very young age to commit an offence on which you can be judged into adulthood. There are many reasons why juveniles commit crimes at such an early age: a bad home life, having fallen in with the wrong crowd or simply not having been taught any better and thus not developing the rational and more normal behaviour which comes with age and experience.
We have heard arguments regarding why it is not desirable for a jury to hear about former convictions, given the prejudice that a criminal record can bring, and I feel that these provisions are particularly hard. On hearing of a previous conviction, a jury is likely to attach more weight than it should to a criminal record and may convict on that evidence alone, especially when the current crime is the same or of a similar nature.
1100
This amendment would ensure fairness by narrowing the instances in which evidence of a criminal record can be adduced to two specific categories. The first category is that only those who continually commit crimes throughout their youth would have their record put before the jury. It would exclude those who made one mistake and learnt their lesson. I believe strongly that they should not have to continue to be punished by reference to something in their past.
All noble Lords in the Chamber were 14 years old at one time. I am sure that we can recall our own misdemeanours, along with those of others. Furthermore, most of us have been fortunate enough to be parents and live in fear and trepidation that our children may not stick to the straight and narrow. This provision creates an intolerable burden for a young person who may grow up to be a very responsible citizen. It will haunt them all their life.
The second category is if the defence has introduced evidence of the defendant's experiences before the age of 14. This would create a similar category to the current law on similar fact evidence, where a defendant adduces evidence of his good behaviour and thus loses his "shield" to past convictions.
I feel very strongly about this. The wide drafting of Clause 101 will cause grave injustice if it is passed unamended. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I rise to oppose the Question that Clause 101 stand part of the Bill. I am encouraged in doing so by the Children's Society, Barnardo's, NCH, NCB, NAYJ, Liberty and NACRO, all of which are urging the Government to reconsider these proposals on the basis that they are likely to have a damaging effect on children and young people.
The current situation is such that the law makes a special provision restricting the admissibility of evidence for crimes committed during childhood if a person is charged with offences in adulthood. We want to see those special provisions retained.
I have four major areas of concern. My first concern is about the proposal to widen the type of activity that can be admitted to the court. The admissibility of evidence of a defendant's previous convictions is currently restricted, but provisions in other clauses seek to widen that admissibility. With its wide definition of "bad character" in Clause 90, the Bill goes further than previous convictions to include previous allegations, acquittals and general behaviour, the kind of things that the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, so eloquently described.
The wider range of circumstances would lead to the court's consideration of the defendant's inclination to commit crime rather than evidence that he or she has actually committed the specific crime of which he or she is accused. Surely the purpose of a trial is to determine whether a particular defendant committed a particular crime, and not to make general judgments about the defendant's previous behaviour.

1101
My second concern is that neither the White Paper, Justice for All, nor the Law Commission's 2001 report, Evidence of Bad Character in Criminal Proceedings, nor the Auld report, made any specific reference to the effects on young people, nor identified particular problems with the current situation in relation to offences committed before the age of 14. Consequently there has been no meaningful consultation in this area.
The Children and Young Persons Act 1963 established an exception to the admissibility of evidence rules contained within the Criminal Evidence Act in recognition of the particular circumstances and experiences of children in relation to the rule of doli incapax. Under this principle, children between the ages of 10 and 13 were presumed to be incapable of criminal intent, and this presumption had to be rebutted by the prosecution before they could be convicted.
The Government's rationale for making a change in this area is not clear. I therefore particularly question the inclusion of offences committed as a child into the proposed scheme. Current criminal justice legislation in this area makes the distinction between the definition of a "child", defined as a person under 14, and a "young person" as between the ages of 14 and 18. While I would in no way want to endorse this distinction as I remain committed to the definition of a child as under the age of 18 within both the Children Act 1989 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is difficult to understand why the Government seek to remove this distinction through Clause 101.
My third concern is about the relevance of offences committed as a child to criminal proceedings for offences over the age of 21. It is questionable whether any of us would consider it reasonable or relevant to be held to account for actions and behaviours during childhood after a potential gap of up to 11 years. Surely we could consider that a person may very well have changed during that time into someone almost unrecognisable from the little tearaway of 11 years old.
My final concern is about rehabilitation and policy consistency. The Government's proposals are particularly puzzling in the light of the recent Home Office report, Breaking the Circle: A Report of the Review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (July 2002). The report contains a proposal for a "clean sheet" at 18 in respect of disclosures to employers for all but the most sensitive posts. In recognition of the particular vulnerability of young offenders, the review also considered whether a similar framework should be applied in respect of the admissibility of those previous convictions in court. The report concludes a preference for the current reliance on the general rules of relevance and the provisions of the 1963 Act. However, the Bill proposes to overturn the current situation on which the recommendations in the report were based and is potentially introducing contradictory policy in this area. This is extraordinary strabismus. The Government are looking both ways at once.
1102
To summarise our objections to the clause, the important legal safeguard of the principle of doli incapax has been eroded by Section 34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 so that a 10 year-old child is now presumed to be as criminally responsible as a fully mature adult, a situation that would shock many of our European neighbours. The further erosion through the Bill of any safeguards for children and young people in relation to a recognition of their age and capacity for change and development, coupled with the widening of the definition of "bad character" and the circumstances in which evidence is admissible in court, is both significant and very alarming. I urge the Government to reconsider their proposals both in respect of allowing young people to move on in their lives and an assessment of the continued relevance of their behaviour at a very young age to their future position in society.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I support the principle underlying the noble Baroness's amendment. I declare an interest as the very recently outgoing chairman of NACRO'S committee on children and crime.
NACRO has carried out a great deal of work researching the causes of children's crime and the effect of criminal findings upon children and their futures. My first observation is that there is overwhelming evidence that most children under 14 who commit crime are socially excluded in some way or another and are far more likely to commit crime because of that social exclusion. That finding has meant that NACRO has welcomed the work carried out by the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister in trying to ensure that there is less social exclusion of children and disadvantaged families. The result of reducing social exclusion will be less crime committed by children.
The NACRO committee also found that increasingly criminalising children leads to further crime by children at an older age. If they come before courts at a young age and are sentenced to custodial terms of one kind or another when they are young, they are far more likely to commit crime later. There is some evidence that children who are regarded as "bad" because they have committed crime are more likely to be stigmatised later by those who live around them.
Can the Minister explain the rationale behind the clause? The Notes on Clauses do not make this clear. There is a risk that the clause will lead to precisely that further criminalisation of children which the research carried out by NACRO and the committee that I chaired found would he counter-productive.
Can the Minister confirm that the provisions of Clause 93(3) and 93(4)—the provisions that leave the court with the discretion on certain grounds not to admit evidence—as intended by the Government would, in the Government's view, be applicable to questions arising in a court under Clause 101? There should be at least the same level of discretion to exclude findings of guilt and other evidence of bad character which apply to children under the age of 14 as to activities of those same people when they are adults.

1103
I support the noble Baroness's amendment in principle. I hope that the Government will be able to persuade us either that they have covered these concerns or that they will revisit these very important issues.
Lord Hylton: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, although it would give the Government a better chance to have second thoughts if the whole of Clause 101 were to be removed from the Bill. The Government might like to reflect on the old saying that every dog is allowed one bite. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was right to mention the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Perhaps we could have an assurance that spent convictions under that Act will not be allowed to be quoted against defendants.
I conclude by suggesting to the Minister that the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is far too low and should be considerably raised.
2.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 146A in the name of my noble friend Lady Seccombe. I should make it clear that there has been a printing error in the Marshalled List. Those who study them assiduously as their bedtime reading will notice that, on the original version, my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts appeared below that of my noble friend Lady Seccombe. Those names have now slipped, by some chance, to give our support to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It was a fortuitous printing error because I can now give my support to the noble Baroness, having heard the arguments that she has adduced today and the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew.
I, too, have received most helpful briefings from the various organisations representing the interests of children. They make strong points, and the Minister will have a tough job to persuade us that the arguments put forward should not carry the day.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank all those who have spoken on the same theme. I will try to answer the issues raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Seccombe and Lady Walmsley, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and, more latterly, by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
Clause 101 is intended to remove the absolute barrier to admitting evidence of certain juvenile convictions in trials of offences committed as an adult. Our aim is to simplify the plethora of rules governing the use of previous convictions and other misconduct as evidence and enable that material to be admitted and assessed on its evidential merits. We therefore believe that the sort of convictions covered by Section 16(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 should fall under the general scheme for admissibility set out in the Bill. Such convictions may well he relevant to the case, and where they are, it should be possible to introduce them as evidence, provided—I emphasise this—it is safe to do so.
1104
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, would add an unnecessarily complex series of restrictions to the admission of such evidence. May I explain why? With the amendment, it would be necessary either for the prosecution to show that there was a "continuous or persistent" commission of offences or for the defence to have introduced evidence of the defendant's experiences before the age of 14 years. It would then also he necessary to show that those convictions met the conditions of admissibility set out earlier in the Bill. We spent some time looking at those provisions in Clause 93.
The introduction of new, specific criteria would lead to complex legal arguments on whether conditions such as continuous or persistent commission of similar offences had been satisfied and would move away from considering the probative value of the evidence as the key to its admissibility.
The considerations suggested by the amendment may, in the circumstances of an individual case, be important. However, that is already reflected in the general scheme of admissibility set out in the Bill. For example, where persistent offending of a similar kind lends weight to the probative value of evidence, it will be taken into account by the court when applying the exclusionary test under Clause 93(3), as that involves assessing the probative value of the evidence against any prejudicial effect. That takes up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that that test will be able to bite upon any such evidence. Equally, where a defendant has introduced evidence of his experiences under the age of 14 so as to create a false impression about himself, evidence of his convictions at that age will be admissible to rebut that false impression, but it will be directed at a specific issue that has been raised during the trial.
However, it is wrong to impose such factors as prerequisites to the admissibility of the evidence, as it would mean that such convictions could never be used in other circumstances, no matter how relevant. We do not agree that that is the correct approach. I shall develop our argument on Section 16(2) and 16(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 in the context of the stand part debate that we are to have. The amendment raises the question of whether such convictions should be admissible only in certain predefined circumstances. For the reasons I have just given, we do not agree. For example, a conviction for an offence that had close similarities to the one now charged may well be highly relevant, even if committed at a young age, without any element of persistence.
There are problems, too, with the requirement that the defendant has introduced evidence of his experiences below the age of 14. What of the defendant who gives a misleading impression to the jury by claiming to be of generally good character or admits only to minor offending in his later teens? His convictions for younger offending may well be relevant to correcting the picture he has given to the jury. We talked about that earlier under Clause 93.
The amendment represents an attempt to limit the circumstances in which that sort of evidence is admissible to those in which its probative value might

1105
be thought to be most significant. We are not unsympathetic to that concern. However, we consider that the most appropriate way of ensuring that evidence of that nature is admitted only where its relevance is clearly established is not by having an arbitrary rule that risks excluding cogent evidence but by subjecting the evidence to the general scheme set out in the Bill, in particular the test to ensure that probative value outweigh prejudicial effect. In the light of the sort of anomalies I have referred to, we oppose a strict rule in this area.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, asked for a number of broad assurances, which I hope I have covered. Perhaps I should say a word or two more about Clause 101. Although they very much dovetail with the comments I made in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, wanted a slightly more generic debate on the import of Clause 101
As I said, Clause 101 repeals subsections (2) and (3) of Section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act. That provision precludes the use in adult proceedings of certain convictions received as a juvenile. Specifically where a person aged 21 or over has committed an offence, their convictions for offences committed under the age of 14 cannot be given in evidence. Clause 101 removes that arbitrary restriction and ensures that such evidence will instead fall under the general scheme for admitting it.
It is important that we bear in mind the overall purpose of this part of the Bill—to create a new and single statutory scheme for admitting bad character evidence that operates on a coherent basis. The intention, therefore, is to enable courts to admit evidence where it will assist in determining a case, but subject to suitable safeguards, which we have just explored. Clauses 93(3) will suffice to provide a safeguard, as will Clause 93(4), which we discussed earlier. The right balance is struck to ensure that relevant and only relevant convictions, including the sort with which Section 16(2) is concerned, can be put before the court; but that those with little value, especially because of their age, are excluded without creating an arbitrary exclusionary rule encompassing potentially relevant evidence.
I hope that I have been able to explain to noble Lords why we seek that extension.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, responds, would the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, like to reflect on her assertion that there was a printing error? My experience, which goes back quite a long way in this House, is that the Public Bill Office does not make printing errors. If there was an error between the various noble Baronesses, that is their problem; it is not that of the Public Bill Office.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, but there have indeed been several problems in printing during the course of the Bill, as the Minister is also aware. The Public Bill Office has been under tremendous strain. It has been most
1106
apologetic when errors have occurred; as we always are when we cause errors. On this occasion, during the recess, when I tabled 180 amendments, I took the precaution of typing, faxing and keeping copies of them myself, so I am aware exactly what was tabled, which has been accepted. So I can assure the noble Lord that there was a printing error on this occasion, and there have been errors on this Bill on previous occasions. But they are so rare that I can perfectly well understand why he found that so surprising.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Prescience must have prevailed.
Baroness Seccombe: I thank those noble Lords who supported the amendment and the Minister for her detailed reply. There is much to read and digest in what she said. I wonder whether it is Clause 93 that needs redrafting. I shall take further advice and discuss the matter. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 101 agreed to.
Clause 101 [Assumption of truth in assessment of relevance or probative value]:
On Question, Whether Clause 102 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ackner: I can be brief, because I have the advantage of the views of the judges. They refer to the unnecessary verbiage in the Bill and in particular to Clause 102. They state that Clause 102,
"contains nothing more than a statement of the obvious".
If that is the case, why are we adding even further to this excessively long Bill?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Clause 102 deals with the approach that the court is to take towards assessing the truth of bad character evidence when considering its probative value. Of course, I take seriously what the noble and learned Lord says about the concern expressed by the judges. It would be a little unjust to describe it as verbiage, if for no other reason than that that term lacks elegance.
For those purposes, the court is required to assume that the evidence is true. That follows the recommendation of the Law Commission in its report, Evidence of Bad Character in Criminal Proceedings, Law Commission Document No. 273, and codifies the current common law.
The issue is this: probative value is a combination of the extent to which the evidence proves a matter in question and the extent to which it can be relied on. Assessing probative force is an important issue in admitting bad character evidence, as it can be excluded where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. The question therefore arises: to what extent should the judge assess the credibility of a witness when considering the admissibility of their testimony of a defendant's bad character?
As the noble and learned Lord will, I am sure, know, the point was considered in the House of Lords in 1995 in the case of R v H, which involved allegations of

1107
collusion between two witnesses whose accounts were sought to be admitted in support of each other under the similar fact rule. The House took the view that the assessment of a witness's credibility should be left to the jury and the trial judge should accordingly make no inquiry into the quality of evidence when considering its admissibility. That maintains the important distinction between the roles of the judge and the jury: the jury being asked to decide matters of fact, such as the reliability of evidence; and the judge ruling on matters of law.
In its 2001 report, the Law Commission recommended that the law be codified along those lines. It considered that issues of contamination and collusion ought to be decided by juries and that there were undesirable consequences to judges being asked to examine the reliability of evidence when deciding admissibility. It pointed out that that would frequently require the prosecution to prove a negative—that there had been no collusion or contamination—which would often be impossible, and it much relied on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, in the case of H who said:
"This is more than I am willing to accept. The possibility of innocent infection is one amongst many factors which the jury will have to take into account; but to treat it as a unique 'threshold issue' loads the scales unfairly against the prosecution, and hence the interests of those who cannot protect themselves".
The Law Commission therefore concluded that the law should remain as it is—in other words that the court should assume that evidence of bad character is true when considering its admissibility. We agree, and Clause 102 adopts the proposal in the Law Commission's draft Bill to put that on a statutory footing.
Lord Ackner: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. I should like to consider it at length, but at this stage I shall not press the proposition that the clause be removed.
Clause 102 agreed to.
Clauses 103 and 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 [Interpretation of Chapter 1]:
2.45 p.m.
Lord Acknermoved Amendment No. 147:
Page 67, line 41, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: Again, the Committee will be pleased, if not surprised, to learn that I can deal with this succinctly. The question that the judges raise is: how can a judge properly decide what evidence should be admitted without considering all the offences on which the accused is being tried? What is the answer to that question? I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: As the noble and learned Lord will appreciate, Clause 105(2) derives from the Law Commission's report on the subject and its draft Bill. It ensures that offences are treated in isolation when considering the question of admissibility. Thus evidence might be admissible on charge A but not on charge B. The fact that it is not relevant on charge B
1108
would not mean that it was inadmissible in the trial. Equally, admitting the evidence in relation to charge A would not make it admitted on charge B. The problem with the amendment is that it would remove this provision.
Clause 105(2) is required to make the position clear as I outlined it. We would not want evidence to be ruled inadmissible because, although relevant to charge A, it was not relevant in respect of charge B. Nor would we want evidence to be admissible across all charges because relevant to one of them. However, we recognise the concern, raised in the Lord Chief Justice's paper on the Bill, that when considering whether evidence should actually be admitted, the effect of the evidence on the proceedings as a whole should be taken into account. In other words, when applying the exclusionary test set out in Clause 93(3), the court should consider the prejudicial impact of the evidence on the trial as a whole, and not simply in relation to the charge to which it is relevant, That has always been our intention. We are happy to consider whether an amendment is necessary to put that position beyond doubt and will table one on Report if it proves to be so.
I hope that on the basis of that response, the noble and learned Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ackner: I am most grateful to the Minister for his co-operative approach. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 105 agreed to.
Clause 106 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 107 [Admissibility of hearsay evidence]:
Lord Thomas of Gresfordmoved Amendment No. 149:
Page 68, line 15, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: So we reach another watershed in the Bill. We now turn to the problem of hearsay evidence, which always relates to the difficulty of challenging it. When a person says that he has been told some information by a third party, two questions arise. First, did the third party actually say what the witness says that he said? Secondly, if he did say what the witness says that he said, is it true?
The difficulties can be illustrated through the unfortunate circumstances of yesterday, when Mr Andrew Gilligan told the Hutton inquiry what he had been told by Dr Kelly, who unfortunately died. The issue was whether Mr Gilligan was actually told what he said he was told and whether it was true. That is a basic problem with hearsay evidence, and one approaches the clause with that in mind.
We on these Benches find the whole clause objectionable, which is why the clause stand part debate is grouped with the amendment to which I am speaking. Even if one were to keep the clause in some

1109
form, it is highly objectionable as it is framed. In subsection (1), we object to paragraph (d), which says that in,
"criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if…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".
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, told us all morning that she was looking for clarification and certainty in the law, and to that degree was prepared in some circumstances to dispense with the discretion that a judge may have in deciding, for example, the balance between probative value and prejudicial effect. Here the discretion is handed over entirely to the court as to whether the hearsay evidence should be admitted, subject only to subsection (2), where there are certain factors for the judge to bear in mind. Members of the Committee may feel that they are fairly obvious matters, but the provisions are extremely vague and broad and introduce into the law of evidence in criminal cases hearsay evidence wholesale. It can never be certain for a defendant that he will not face evidence of this sort; whether a judge admits it or not, it will be a matter for applications, either pre-trial or during the trial. We object in principle to the introduction of hearsay evidence of that type.
Coupled with the amendment is Amendment No. 150, which is not very helpful because subsection (2) is in truth concerned with subsection (1)(d), and if subsection (1)(d) were struck out as we wish it to be, subsection (2) would not apply.
I do not propose to address noble Lords at any length on those matters, but I want to hear why it is necessary to introduce such an unsafe and uncertain principle of the law of evidence into criminal trials. I am not going to repeat the speech that I made so many times that noble Lords must be weary of it, relating to the problems of miscarriages of justice and the impact that they have on the public's confidence in the criminal justice system. This is just another example in the Bill of attempting to obtain more convictions and thereby risking more unjust convictions and more miscarriages of justice. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: I offer qualified support for this chapter, chiefly because it contains Clause 107(1)(d), which I see as its great merit. I cannot therefore support Amendment No. 149, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will give the matter further consideration.
The reason for my qualified support of the chapter is that, to one's regret, there has been a failure by the English courts to redress a mischief of their own creation. The rule excluding hearsay evidence and some of the exceptions to it are entirely a creation of the courts over the centuries. Parliament never enacted such a rule. It might have been thought that, just as a rule was developed, so the courts would have accepted responsibility to modify it in the direction favoured by virtually all who have examined the subject in any
1110
depth—namely, by placing more weight on reliability rather than technicality. Instead, there has been in England and Wales much ossification—largely, I regret to say, achieved by the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House, which has insisted on a strict bar even on hearsay of unquestionably high reliability, subject only to a list of exceptions now declared closed.
Notorious examples of that approach are well known to all criminal lawyers and may be found in all criminal textbooks. It is enough for me to give but one. In 1992, in the case of Kearley, the Appellate Committee held that, on a charge of drug dealing, police evidence was inadmissible that, within a few hours, some 20 customers or would-be customers had called at or telephoned the accused's flat seeking supplies, some of them asking for him personally. That decision was by a majority of three to two, with powerful dissenting speeches. However, the weight of the majority will be apparent when I mention that one of its members was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
At least in part, some such decisions have invoked not only the hearsay rule, but a perhaps equally odd view that the rejected evidence was irrelevant. However, the Law Commission, on whose report this chapter of the Bill is based, appears to have accepted that some third party confessions, for example, previously inadmissible, would be admissible under their proposals. It is to be hoped that the reform now proposed, although it sorely needs simplification, will encourage the courts to a less austere view of relevance and more confidence in the common sense of juries, magistrates and trial judges.
In other common law countries, particularly Canada and New Zealand, the courts have moulded the judge-made law so as to accept broadly a general residual discretion to admit hearsay evidence of sufficient apparent reliability. The English courts have scarcely budged, however, and the time is clearly more than ripe for Parliament to step in, as has been recommended by many authoritative reports.
Unfortunately, though, the Law Commission, after a meticulous review of the field, produced a highly elaborate set of proposed new rules in a pattern reflected in the present Bill. In complexity, it far outdoes the existing law. I would respectfully urge the Government to heed the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice. In his background paper lodged in the Library, he puts it thus:
"What is needed is a simple rule putting the judge in charge of what evidence is admissible and giving him the responsibility of ensuring that the jury use the evidence in an appropriate manner".
It seems to me that a similar rule should apply in summary proceedings, bearing in mind that any misapplication of it could be corrected on appeal or otherwise—by review, for instance.
Indeed—and this is the point at which I come to Amendment No. 149—just such a clause is already in the Bill. Clause 107(1)(d) makes hearsay admissible in criminal proceedings if, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said,

1111
"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".
The genesis of that provision is in a clause rather tucked away in the Law Commission's draft and somewhat less strongly worded by the commission. The drafters of the Bill have moved this provision to a more prominent and more logical place and have improved the wording. The provision is intended to override all the detailed ones, even the complicated ones in the Bill, about multiple hearsay. That accords with the Law Commission's intention which regarded its clause, tucked away as it was, as an overriding provision. The commission suggested that the power would be used only exceptionally. However, neither in its draft nor in the Bill before the House is there that limitation.
So the Bill contains this general provision, giving the courts a flexible weapon to achieve justice in criminal law. The other elaborate, intricate provisions of the chapter are not essential and indeed distract from the real issue. In so saying, I venture to speak from more than 30 years experience as a judge, largely in New Zealand, but in various other countries also, including some five years as a Lord of Appeal in this House. I am not involved in politics in the slightest way nor even interested in tactical manoeuvres. With deference, but with a conviction born, I claim, of impartiality, I would suggest to the Minister and his colleagues that they might demonstrate open-mindedness, think again and move towards a more simple approach, a change in the present Bill which would, in importance and radicalness, be nothing by comparison with their proposed constitutional changes.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: It is with trepidation that I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke. My father always taught me of the importance of bewaring of the mythical Greeks bearing gifts. When one sees the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary shouldering blame, one should guard carefully. He need take no blame having played such a distinguished part himself in whatever reform of the law is possible within the judicial process in this House.
I follow with trepidation because to an extent I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, and to an extent I disagree with him in supporting my noble friend Lord Thomas. I agree with the noble and learned Lord in what I understand to be a fundamental question in his speech as to what this provision really amounts to. I ask the Minister to tell the Committee whether Clause 107 and the following clauses are codification or change.
If those clauses are intended to be codification, they fail. I give an example of what is not included in the Bill. It is the inclusion of the regime—which will be familiar to the noble Baroness—set out in Sections 23 to 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 dealing with the admissibility of statements contained in documents—a matter which is litigated daily in many courts, and usually these days without much difficulty in the light of useful guidance given by higher courts.
1112
I perused the list of proposed amendments to the Bill and I see no attempt to create a single regime for hearsay evidence. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, and I would agree that it is desirable that there should be a single body of legislation that deals with hearsay evidence, whether it be of an oral or written kind, so that judges can make that decision of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, spoke when devising his proposed rule. I ask the Government why they have not gone down the road recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, of trying to produce a simple, single body of law to deal with hearsay evidence?
I also ask the Minister to explain to the House what difference the Government expect these provisions to make in practical terms. Although I agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas as regards the possible effect of the provisions, I have a suspicion that in reality they will have very little effect. Is that the Government's intention? If the expectation and intention of the Government is that there should be far more hearsay evidence admitted, it presents the risk of real dangers of miscarriage of justice, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. I think, for example, of a range of cases of which I, my noble friend and, indeed, the Minister have great experience; that is, allegations of historic child abuse in which there are always protestations that those who would be called to give evidence are unfit so to do. There are many cases in which parts of indictments are dropped because potential witnesses are judged by the prosecution to be unable to give evidence because of reasons connected with their mental health.
If it is the intention or expectation of the Government that people falling into that category should have their statements read as part of the prosecution case on a regular basis, I for one, with many years of experience of those cases, would have grave misgivings. There would arise from those circumstances real risks of improper convictions based on evidence that stands no chance of being tested. If that is not an example of the range of evidence which the Government have in mind, I should like to know what is within their expected range. Regarding this clause and what follows, my feeling is that the Government owe us more of an explanation than is contained in the Notes on Clauses to the Bill as regards what they expect to happen in real courts and in real cases.
At the end of the day one is driven back to the reminder which the noble and learned Lord gave us of the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. Why do we not set out some very basic and far simpler rules and leave it to the judges to decide not what would be contrary to the interests of justice, as is set out in Clause 107(1)(d), but what is in the interests of justice—a positive test which is well understood by the courts?
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Being interested in the hearsay rule I wholly support the idea that has just been canvassed that there should be a single regime.

1113
May I ask one question about this? If you look at Clause 107, you have to ask whether it substantially alters extant law and, if so, in what relevant effect. The other question is this: if it does in any relevant respect, is the position that somebody could be acquitted under extant law and convicted on other and different evidence admitted under Clause 107? I am afraid that I put it very simply but I hope that the point has been made.
Lord Davies of Oldham: In responding to the amendment with an absolute dearth of legal expertise, I was already quaking before the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested that we might learn lessons from the Hutton Inquiry. I assure him that I have absolutely no intention whatever of following him down that particular track. We have quite enough to deal with regarding the Bill without being diverted into other significant and challenging issues.
I wrestled with the issue of how the Government should respond. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, rode to my assistance like a knight on a white charger when he accurately identified—rather more precisely than I am able to do—just why the Government intend to follow the course of action proposed with regard to the clause that we are discussing and why we consider that the amendments to it should be withdrawn.
I emphasise that the issue of the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal trials is a very important one. This chapter provides a comprehensive statutory scheme to replace the current complicated and inconsistent rules. The noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked what was happening in this regard. We are repealing certain provisions and implementing in Clauses 109 and 110 improvements recommended by the Law Commission. The intention of this part of the Bill is to implement a scheme which is based very closely—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, identified—on the recommendations of the Law Commission which gave these issues very careful consideration.
The commission spent three years examining how the law operates in practice and in developing and consulting upon its recommendations for change. The core of the commission's proposed scheme is that there should be some rules which allow for automatic admissibility of evidence (where judicial discretion plays no part) as well as an inclusionary discretion to ensure that the interests of justice are served. The scheme set out in the Bill adopts this approach.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, elegantly indicated that we might take guidance from the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, with regard to a simple approach to the matter. Therefore, it may be a challenge to this part of the Bill that total simplicity has not been achieved. However, it is certainly the intention to give effect to the Law Commission's proposals. There is no doubt at all that the amount contained in the Bill is very limited and is not, I would contend, unduly complex.
1114
Let me also say at the outset—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Could I ask the noble Lord to get right down to the nitty-gritty of this? The Law Commission's proposals seek to alter extant law. If you accept that, you get the position—of which I have a horror—of a man who is acquitted under extant law and then under a new law where the evidence is admitted is convicted on retrial. That is the situation which arises. Ought not some safeguard to be inserted for that?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I think that there are safeguards against the position that arises from the noble Lord's anxieties. He will recognise that we seek to introduce a Bill that, in future, will create broad rules that are as straightforward as we can make them for the admissibility of the evidence. In doing so, we are following as closely as we can the recommendations of the Law Commission.
The group includes several amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that require the court to satisfy itself that the interests of justice are met before any out-of-court statement can be admitted as evidence under this chapter or any other statutory provision. Amendment No. 154 is consequential and would bring admissibility of statements involving frightened witnesses within the same discretion. That is an important practical issue as well as one of principle, because we must achieve the right balance between consistency and discretion.
There are two broad categories where statements would be automatically admissible in Chapter 2. The first is where the maker of the statement is unavailable for a legitimate reason—for example, where the witness is has died, gone abroad or disappeared, providing that reasonable steps have been taken to find them—and, secondly, business documents will be automatically admissible, unless their reliability is doubtful.
The Criminal Justice Act 1988 already makes those various categories potentially admissible, subject to leave and discretion provisions, but the appearance of certainty is illusory. In practice, most applications must be judged. That is a cause of concern, as the Law Commission found a lack of consistency in the way in which judges exercise their discretion under the Act. Some—perhaps those with a traditional hostility to hearsay—regularly exercise their discretion to prevent hearsay statements being admitted.
The amendments would emasculate this part of the Bill. They would undermine one of the most important benefits in reforming hearsay in criminal cases, namely that there should be much greater certainty that out-of-court statements will be admitted as evidence. Practitioners are calling for more certainty in the majority of cases, not less.
It is also important that the rules of evidence should lead to consistent and fair outcomes. The Law Commission has found that they do not in the case of

1115
hearsay. Different judges reach different conclusions about whether statements should go in. As the commission said in its consultation paper on the issue,
"the problem of discretion and arbitrary justice is not an imaginary one. Whether a prosecution is pursued may depend on the admissibility of evidence, and the question of admissibility may depend on the judge's discretion".
In the light of those findings, the Law Commission concluded that, for the relevant categories, the need to obtain leave is a lengthy and unnecessary procedural safeguard. We agree. If the rules of admissibility are reliant entirely on judicial discretion, as the amendments propose, there can be no certainty for the parties concerned. That is of particular concern given the commission's worrying findings that judges were being inconsistent in the exercise of their discretion under the Act.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I ask the noble Lord to consider his words carefully when he talks about inconsistency and discretion. In the past few minutes, he has talked about certain categories of evidence being automatically admissible. Does he really mean that? As I understand this chapter, although it is stated in a negative rather than a positive form, exactly the same kind of judicial discretion will exist as has existed before. If that is a correct interpretation of the Bill, with great respect to the Minister, what he said cannot he quite right. Can he clarify that?
Will the Minister give us some examples of the difference that will be made in cases? The lawyers will always earn their money trying to interpret evidence in different ways and persuading judges. However, those who collect evidence—the police, health authorities and others who carry out investigations—should know what kind of hearsay evidence the Government think is likely to be admissible in future.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I recognise the noble Lord's anxiety. Of course discretion will still be exercised. We seek to make clearer and define more effectively the area within which that discretion should be exercised, against the background of the Law Commission's anxieties, which are clearly reflected in its evidence on the point.
The anxiety that I was trying to identify on the amendments is that, effectively, they would take away the move that we seek to make in the Bill. They would return us to the previous position, in which we would not effect what we regard as the beneficial changes contained in the legislation, which were spoken to so accurately by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke. I had hoped that his considered contribution would absolve me from having to present the case to quite the extent that I have done, but I recognise the appropriate challenges made.
The next issue is the extent to which the court should be able to consider other out-of-court statements falling outside the recognised categories of admissibility. Under Clause 107(1)(d), reliable statements not falling within one of the recognised categories, or a preserved common law rule, will remain potentially admissible. Amendment No. 149 would again remove that discretion.
1116
One of the most forceful criticisms of the operation of the current hearsay rule is that reliable evidence can be excluded because it does not fall within any of the pre-existing categories. That can sometimes make it impossible for the defendant to put before the court credible evidence which points to his or her innocence, thus rendering a fair trial impossible.
As the human rights organisation Justice has commented,
"it is a powerful argument against a strict exclusionary rule that miscarriages of justice can be avoided only if the appellant is lucky enough to find a court prepared to decide his case otherwise than according to the law".
If the present inflexible rule can cause injustice for the defendant, there is likewise a risk of injustice when the prosecution is prevented from leading highly probative evidence. The Law Commission was strongly influenced by the need to prevent future injustice. It concluded that an inclusionary discretion was essential and should be available to both the prosecution and the defence. The vast majority of those consulted agreed. In the light of those strong concerns, I am hound to ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 151 seeks to replace Clause 107(2)(h) and (i), and would require the court to take particular account of any unfairness to the parties when hearsay is being admitted, as well as any other relevant factor. Those concerns are already covered by the list of factors to be considered under subsection (2), in particular paragraphs (h) and (i), as already drafted. They would require the court to take account of any difficulty in challenging the statement and the extent to which that difficulty would prejudice the opposing party.
That test is intended precisely to allow the court to consider any unfairness to the parties which might occur were the evidence to be admitted. Any further clarification on the point seems unnecessary. Further, the court is already required to take into account any other relevant factor by the opening words of subsection (2). In the light of that reassurance, I hope the noble Lord will not press those amendments.
Lord Hylton: I have listened to this fascinating debate with interest. However, I want to draw attention to the words printed at line 21 of page 68 which are,
"assuming it to be true".
I note that similar words occurred in Clause 102.
Why should such an assumption be made and, if it is made, how will it be tested? It may be that subsection (2)(h) is relevant, but if so, how is the amount of difficulty involved to be assessed?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that noble Lords will not mind if I respond to the question. Under Clause 107, one of the issues that must be determined before one considers whether the evidence should be included is to assume on the basis that one says, "If that which is not admitted is true, does it have the quality to cause the court to say that it should be admitted into evidence?".

1117
The importance of the evidence should he considered on the assumption that it is true, when the judge comes to decide whether he or she will allow that particular matter to go before the jury. There is no other way of dealing with it. The evidence is proffered in the way that it is, but the court has to determine whether its quality and value to the case make it necessary for it to be admitted. There may be other challenges when the evidence comes in. The defendant may still say, "It may be hearsay, but it's not true". The question is: should the court have the opportunity to hear that challenge, or should that evidence be excluded? Have I made myself clear? I think that the noble Lord still feels puzzled.
Let us take the example given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke. In the case of Kearley, there was evidence that a number of people were phoning the house and asking to speak to the defendant by name and indicating by their comments that he had been the supplier of drugs in the past and that they were seeking supply on that occasion. In assessing whether that evidence should be admitted and thinking about its importance, the court would be entitled to say, "Assume for the moment that that evidence is true. Due to its probative value, importance and relevance, is it the sort of evidence that should be admitted so that the court can determine what it makes of it and the jury can decide what it wants to do with it?" It is a two-stage test. I hope that has helped the noble Lord.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the Minister for such careful consideration of the amendments. We are not satisfied with the clause. I have the quoted the dicta of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, in my favour so many times that I am always dismayed when I discover that he is on the other side of the argument. His argument that, if hearsay evidence is to be admitted, the rules must be a lot simpler should be heeded by the Government. They should read carefully what he said. For example, the subsection to which we take exception, subsection 1(d), would, as my noble friend Lord Carlile pointed out, mean that the statement was automatically to be admitted if, in a hearing, the court was satisfied that,
"it would not be contrary to the interests of justice for it to be admissible".
The burden is very much upon the defendant to establish that it would be contrary to the interests of justice for it to be admissible.
Amendment No. 152, on the other hand, puts the matter more positively. The prosecution would be required to establish that the court was satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice for the statement to be admitted. That would be a more satisfactory way of dealing with hearsay evidence than the proposals in the Bill. First, it is obvious that the judge would take into account the factors set out in subsection (2). Secondly, they amount to a shopping list that will unquestionably prolong hearings as counsel runs down them. Finally, I note that a later amendment, Amendment No. 154, has
1118
been grouped with these amendments. I propose to address that amendment separately when we come to that particular clause.
Our discussion has been extremely useful in clarifying to me where the problems arise in the clause. I shall give further consideration to the problems with hearsay evidence. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 150 to 152 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 107 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ackner: I shall take up no time in mounting a spirited defence of the decision of the Appellate Committee to which I was party, because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, gave me no notice that he was going to rely on any past peccadillo of mine and my brothers. That has saved your Lordships from unnecessarily listening to what might otherwise have been of academic interest.
I am, however, delighted at the way he addressed your Lordships, because he spelt out in greater detail than I would have been able to give the wisdom of adopting what the Lord Chief Justice and the judges of the Court of Appeal have said. Perhaps I may set that out in a little more detail. It is to be found in paragraph 22 on pages 6 and 7:
"The need for the reform of the Rules of Evidence relating to hearsay is not in doubt".
So there is harmony on that. Secondly, they observed the way in which the drafting follows the recommendation of the Law Commission. One must not be hypnotised by the fact that the Law Commission has gone one way. They go on:
"However, we question whether the complexity of the provisions is necessary. What has happened is that the complex common law rules are being replaced by complex statutory rules. some of which are a repetition of the common law rules".
Then the Lord Chief Justice, who is particularly expert in the civil field, says:
"What happens now in civil proceedings is that a judge has a general discretion to determine how matters are to be proved. The judge has to exercise the discretion in the interests of justice. He is assisted in doing this, because the probative value of the evidence depends upon its nature and source. If it is not first-hand evidence, then it has the disadvantage that it has not been tested by cross-examination. Whether this matters depends on the circumstances".
Then, moving to the criminal field, he says:
"If we have got to the stage where it is considered that it is safe to allow juries to hear hearsay evidence, then we must be accepting that they can be trusted to use that evidence in accordance with the directions of the judges".
The paragraph ends with that which my noble and learned friend Lord Cooke quoted:
"Instead of the detailed and complex provisions which are contained in Chapter 2, what is needed is a simple rule putting the judge in charge of what evidence is admissible and giving him the responsibility of ensuring that the jury use the evidence in the appropriate manner".
That is what I rely on for the justification that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My name appears in support of the proposal that Clause 107 shall not stand part of the Bill, so I rise to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. First, I noted from my copy of The Times that today is his birthday and I wish him many happy returns.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I shall not reveal his age because that would be indelicate.
I listened with great care to the debate on the preceding group of amendments. I am not a lawyer, so I tread carefully. I listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, on the weight of evidence and reliability rather than technicality, and to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, about whether it is codification or change. I also listened carefully to the Minister, whose case was based around the importance of certainty and consistency.
In our view, the provisions of Clause 107 as presently drafted make too great a shift in the delicate balance as regards the admissibility of hearsay evidence—from one in which the evidence is generally excluded, unless an exception to the rule applies, to one in which the evidence is ordinarily admitted unless certain safeguards are met; in other words, a shift from an exclusionary hearsay rule to an inclusionary one. In this, our debates have followed those which we had earlier today and on Monday on bad character.
That having been said, we accept that there is a need for reform to the present hearsay rules as suggested by many authoritative bodies, the Runciman Royal Commission and the Auld report. Since the publication of the draft of the Bill, several bodies have expressed concern over whether the provisions have been drafted too widely.
When replying to the previous debate the Minister quoted from Justice briefing. Perhaps I may quote back to her from that briefing. Justice said that,
"the breadth of this power is such that, far from simplifying the law (something we all agree is necessary), it will lead to even more uncertainty for lawyers and members of the public alike. It will not, we feel, reduce the amount of time spent on legal arguments relating to hearsay".
Our concern is therefore that the Government have initiated too extreme, too severe and too sudden a shift.
It is worth while the Committee remembering—particularly those of us who are not lawyers—that in criminal trials the defendant's liberty is at stake, so there is a need for an even greater vigilance to protect his or her rights. Relaxing the laws of evidence admissibility may accelerate court procedure in areas that are being unnecessarily bound up in red tape, but if this is at the expense of giving a defendant a trial that is unquestionably not a fair one, this cannot be an acceptable price. That point was made by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Carlile of Berriew.
1120
Justice has laid out in helpful briefings the background to the historic tendency for the exclusion of hearsay evidence: first, that untruthful witnesses can more easily manufacture evidence and there is no reliable way of proving otherwise; secondly. that there is unlikely to be any satisfactory or fair way of testing whether the out-of-court statement maker was mistaken, or, for that matter, was worse than mistaken and was attempting to mislead. Thirdly, the evidence referred to is not given on oath and the out-of-court statement maker may not be prepared to repeat it on oath. Fourthly, there are human rights implications that must be considered.
The rule against hearsay evidence is recognised as an aspect of the right to a fair criminal trial by Article 6.3(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights. It states that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right,
"to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him".
Obviously, if the admissibility of hearsay evidence were to be relaxed, as proposed in the Bill, such treatment of evidence would not be so closely adhered to.
Those points of clarity and the important need to bring to the court's attention the critical issues were highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in the amendments that he moved. They seem to us to be sensible amendments which dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s of the Bill. While we do not believe that this clause as a whole should stand part of the Bill, we nevertheless support the amendments as they stand.
Apart from those issues, and the others which we have been discussing, we are also concerned that the Government have initiated this change without fully considering the implications of the relevant section of Lord Justice Auld's report, from which many of the changes have sprung. In paragraph 101 of chapter 11 of the report, which is entitled The Trial: Procedure and Evidence, Lord Justice Auld observes how the Law Commission considered that the "best available evidence principle"—that is the adduction of evidence based upon its weight rather than its admissibility; in other words, the use, inter alia, of hearsay evidence—is one that might suit an inquisitorial system like that in Germany but,
"it would not work in our adversarial system where the parties. not the tribunal, are responsible for seeking out and calling evidence".
But Lord Justice Auld, having posed the question, did not give an answer to it—nor, I fear, so far have the Government. Since Lord Justice Auld saw it appropriate to include this in his report, it is intriguing that the Government chose not to make it a consideration. Perhaps if they had reflected upon this important consideration, their proposals to relax the laws regarding hearsay would be appropriately better balanced. I shall be interested to see whether the Minister can enlighten us further today when she comes to reply.

1121
In conclusion, I understand that the Government appreciate the sensitivities surrounding the admissibility of hearsay evidence, as the discussions in Committee in both Houses have shown. Words such as "considered", "potential" and "relevant" often appear when the Government discuss provisions on hearsay in this Bill. But these safeguards surely should not be there to weed out and identify the exceptions to hearsay that are not admissible. The emphasis should be to the contrary— safeguards should be there to identify hearsay evidence that should be admissible.
As I have said, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, certainly improve Clause 107. I hope he will agree that achieving an "improvement" on an issue that stands at the heart of our civil liberties is not sufficient. That is why I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in his opposition to the Question that in its present form Clause 107 shall stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I, too, add my many congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on his birthday. It is a sad reflection that he has to spend it here with us. I hope he understands that the pleasure it gives us is considerable.
Clause 107 was ably dealt with by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, in his exposition of why change is necessary. I found that exposition enlightening and I could not possibly have expressed it as elegantly. For once, I had the advantage of listening confident in the knowledge that I did not have to respond immediately.
Clause 107 establishes a new primary rule for the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal trials. It allows all statements which were not made in oral evidence during the trial to be used as evidence of the facts stated within it provided that, first, the statement is admissible under the Bill or another statutory provision; secondly, that the statement is admissible under one of the common law rules preserved by the Bill; thirdly, that all the parties agree that it can go in; or, fourthly, that the court gives leave to admit the statement.
The current common law rule against the admission of hearsay evidence means that, in general, only a statement given by a witness orally in court proceedings is admissible as evidence of the facts which it contains. If evidence falls within the hearsay rule, it will be inadmissible unless an exception applies. We are changing the balance slightly.
However, the changes in the Bill will replace the current hearsay rule with a modern, comprehensive and intelligible legislative scheme. The scheme should reduce the incidence of legal argument concerning the exact boundaries of the hearsay rule and its exceptions. While it is accepted in the Bill that hearsay evidence is generally less satisfactory than first-hand oral evidence given in court, it is also recognised that there may be
1122
cases where that is not so and that, where hearsay evidence represents the best evidence, it should be admissible, subject to appropriate safeguards.
I was pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, alighted upon the case of Kearley. That was a very clear example of why it is important that we have a change. I wish to echo what the noble and learned Lord said about the way that the courts have been reluctant to interfere in this area and re-constrain the exercise of the hearsay rule, even though it was created initially by the courts themselves. I believe that that was clearly indicated in the majority judgment given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, in that case. Even in confirming what the law then was, he recognised that there was a real need for reform and that the ordinary man in the street would find it difficult to understand. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, in dissenting in that case, said:
"In my view the criminal law of evidence should be developed along common sense lines readily comprehensible to the men and women who comprise the jury and bear the responsibility for the major decisions in criminal cases. I believe that most laymen if told that the criminal law of evidence forbade them even to consider such evidence"—
your Lordships will remember the facts of that case—
"as we are debating in this appeal would reply 'Then the law is an ass'".
We want to do all that we can to give the matter clarity. I see the attraction of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, said in relation to simplicity and, indeed, what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said in his comments contained in the letter which we now have the advantage of having in the Library.
Simplicity may be attractive and the benefits of that simpler approach are obvious, but we must also consider the disadvantages. Those include the problems for practitioners in basing a scheme entirely on judicial discretion, the uncertainty surrounding the admissibility of the evidence and the particular difficulty which the lower court would have in dealing with this issue. The Law Society, for example, believes that such an approach would create hurdles in the operation of the court system, and the Crown Prosecution Service believes that such a rule would be even more difficult to understand and even less certain in its practical operation. I believe that the Bar Council also rejected it on the grounds that any new scheme must replace the present uncertainties with fewer, not more, uncertainties. That is why we have tried to structure Clause 107 with an eye to a deal of precision, which at least gives the court and practitioners the framework in an understandable, intelligible way in order to implement it.
Clause 107 also provides the court with an additional discretion to admit out-of-court statements if, despite the difficulties that there may be in challenging the statement, it is,
"not … contrary to the interests of justice",

1123
to do so. The idea, therefore, is that the court should be able to admit an out-of-court statement where it is cogent and reliable. This also aims to ensure that defendants can present all evidence vital to their defence and receive a fair trial. Some guidance is included at subsection (2) on what factors the court should consider when deciding this issue. Those factors are intended to focus attention on whether the circumstances surrounding the making of an out-of-court statement indicate that it can be treated as reliable enough to admit the evidence, despite the fact that it will not be subject to cross-examination. That discretion would operate for both the defence and the prosecution. In summary, we believe that Clause 107 will provide a structured and simplified approach to the admissibility of hearsay evidence.
I was asked why we have crafted the Bill slightly differently from the way proposed by the Law Commission. Clause 107, like the other provisions in Chapter 2 of Part 11, draws substantially on the work of the Law Commission in its 1997 report on hearsay evidence, but it does not follow it slavishly. The commission proposed that the general rule against hearsay be maintained subject to specified exceptions. The commission also proposed that there be a residual inclusionary discretion to admit first-hand and multiple hearsay evidence.
However, the Government have since reconsidered what form the primary rule should take in the light of Sir Robin Auld's recommendation that hearsay should be generally admissible, subject to the principle of best evidence. We have concluded that there are advantages in expressing the hearsay rule in a positive way, whereby all relevant hearsay is potentially admissible unless there are good reasons for excluding it. That approach reflects our desire to allow fact-finders greater access to cogent and relevant evidence in their search for the truth. It is also consistent with the Law Commission's proposal that hearsay evidence should be admitted if the interests of justice require it. The judicial discretion referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is preserved within this section because Clause 107 acts to avert any possible injustice by allowing a court to admit cogent and reliable hearsay statements, even if they do not fall within any of the categories of admissibility provided by the Bill. We would argue that that is a very fair and just test. With those comments, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to be content that Clause 107 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Ackner: I had hoped that my anniversary would pass without being noted because I am bound to say that as the years roll by I find it increasingly difficult to measure up to my sobriquet, "Number One Trouble Maker", but I do try.
The ground has been very fully covered on this subject. In order to make my anniversary more pleasurable to recollect, I do not think I need do more than to invite your Lordships to enter the Not-Content Lobby in order to get rid of this clause.
3.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 107 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 70.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Ahmed, L.

Harrison, L.

Andrews, B.

Hayman, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bach, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bhatia, L.

Jordan, L.

Billingham, B.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bragg, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brookman, L.

MacKenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Christopher, L.

Mischon, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Rooker, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Crawley, B.

Simon, V.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Stallard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Dubs, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Eatwell, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Elder, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Uddin, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Weatherill, L.

Whitaker, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Whitty, L.

Gale, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Gavron, L.

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

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Howe, E.

Alderdice, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hylton, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Attlee, E.

Kingsland, L.

Biffen, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Bridges, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Maddock, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Colwyn, L.

Naseby, L.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Newby, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Craigavon, V.

Noakes, B.

Crathorne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Denham, L.

Onslow, E.

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fowler, L.

Peel, E.

Freeman, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Plumb, L.

Hanham, B.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rawlings, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rees, L.

1125

Renton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Tenby, V.

Rolls of Ipsden, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Roper, L.

Tordoff, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Seccombe, B.

Walmsley, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stern, B. [Teller]

Wilcox, B.

Stewartby, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Resolved in the negative, and Clause 107 disagreed to accordingly.
4.9 p.m.
Clause 108 [Statements and matters stated]:
Lord Thomas of Gresfordmoved Amendment No. 153:
Page 69, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) A statement of opinion is only admissible if the opinion would have been admissible as oral evidence in the proceedings."
The noble Lord said: The problem with Clause 108 appears in subsection (2) where it delineates a statement as a,
"representation of fact or opinion made by a person by whatever means".
It says not "expert opinion" but "opinion". Effectively, anyone's hearsay opinion is being permitted. For example, hearsay opinion might be admissible under these provisions in an identification, such as, "I didn't see the man who robbed me but Mrs A told me she thought it was X", or "Mrs A said that in her opinion, knowing X, only X could have committed this robbery".
Such opinions clearly would not be admissible as oral evidence in the proceedings because opinion evidence is not generally admissible unless it is given by an expert on the basis of his or her professional expertise. The purpose of Amendment No. 153, therefore, is to make it absolutely clear that a statement of opinion can be admissible only under the hearsay provisions if the opinion would have been admissible as oral evidence in the proceedings. I think that its purport is extremely clear. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Although the hearsay rule and the rule in relation to evidence of opinion originate from the same principle that in general witnesses may only give evidence of facts of which they have personal knowledge, it is important to remember that the two rules are distinct, even though the same piece of evidence might require both rules to be examined.
Neither Chapter 2 nor the rest of the Bill for that matter is intended to affect the common law rule in criminal trials which, subject to limited exceptions, prevents witnesses expressing their opinions about what happened or may have happened in the case. Under the rule, the opinions of witnesses are inadmissible, unless they fall within an exception, such as where the court needs expert help in deciding an issue, or where it is genuinely impossible for an ordinary witness to tell his story in any other way.
1126
Nothing in this Bill will alter that position. If an out-of-court statement contains opinion evidence, that part of the statement will not be admissible unless it falls within one of the exceptions to the general rule against opinion evidence. To ensure that there are no unintended consequences, Clause 107(3) explicitly states that nothing in this chapter affects the exclusion of evidence of a statement on grounds other than the fact that it is a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings. So we would respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that no clarification would seem necessary.
It is right to say that in another place concern was expressed as to why it was necessary to refer to "opinion" within Clause 108(2) if nothing in the Bill was intended to alter the common law position on evidence. I think that is the import of much of what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said today.
I hope that I have explained that there are occasions when common law permits opinion evidence to be admissible. We need to ensure that admissible opinion evidence is not excluded from the hearsay provisions of Chapter 2, bearing in mind that that is somewhat difficult because we have had a clause stand part debate on Clause 107.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Of course, Clause 107 no longer stands part of the Bill. I am assured by the noble Baroness that opinion evidence is not to be treated any differently under the Bill than it is in common law. If something like Clause 107 were reinstated, it might play a further part in our considerations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 108 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has put his name down to omit this clause. I feel bound if I may to move that. It is extraordinary. Imagine criminal proceedings in which a cartoon—even one in The Times—could be quoted as a way of exposing truth. So many cartoons are a diversion from the truth and the idea that they could be admitted in a criminal case as a sketch—because that is what cartoons are—could lead to the most extraordinary results. I hope that the Government will reconsider this clause altogether. It is utter nonsense.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, says. We think that Clause 108 is sound. It defines the type of statements that will be covered by the new scheme. According to subsection (3), the rule will apply only if it is the purpose of the person making the statement to cause someone to believe the matter stated is true or to act on the basis that it is true. The common law rule was much wider than this and excluded statements or conduct from which a relevant fact could be inferred, although the maker did not intend to communicate that fact. The

1127
rule has caused much confusion and injustice in borderline cases, known to lawyers as implied assertions. We think that the clause is well founded.
On the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, we do not think that this matter will engage the court in any difficulty in relation to criminal cases.
Clause 108 agreed to.
Clause 109 [Cases where a witness is unavailable]:
Lord Thomas of Gresfordmoved Amendment No. 153A:
Page 69, line 30, at end insert "but only after such steps as may reasonably be taken to address that fear have been taken"
The noble Lord said: The problem that arises under Clause 109 is the extension of the concept of fear as a reason for a witness not giving evidence in court to fear of "financial loss". We are well used to situations in which evidence is brought before the court—before the judge in the absence of the jury, or before the magistrates—of a witness who is too afraid to come to court. Usually, it is obvious from the nature of the proceedings why that fear has arisen—perhaps it is a rape case, or the witness has been attacked or there is evidence of threats having been issued against a particular witness.
However, were a person saying, "I'm not coming to court to give evidence orally because I'm afraid of losing money", to be the basis for the statement to be admitted takes the matter too far. I refer your Lordships to subsection (3) which says:
"For the purposes of subsection (2)(e) 'fear' is to be widely construed and…includes fear of the death or injury of another person or of financial loss"
That is unacceptable. Fear of financial loss ought not to be a proper reason for reading the statements of witnesses as opposed to having them give evidence orally and it is in those circumstances we have lodged these amendments. First, we wish to ensure that steps have reasonably been taken to address the fear before that can be the basis of an application to read a statement. Secondly, we wish to leave out that enormous widening of the concept of fear and, finally, we wish to insert that,
"in appropriate cases, leave may be given…having regard to the fact that",
a special measures direction could be made in relation to the relevant person. Increasingly, screens are creeping into courts. They are obviously good where there is a vulnerable witness. However, very often, in certain circumstances, they appear to be taken advantage of. Not long ago, screens were required in the case of an alleged murder some 30 years previously. One would have thought that the witness's fear was of giving evidence—it is never a pleasant thing to do anyway—and not of any consequences to himself. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The purpose of Clause 109 is to provide for the use in evidence of a witness's out-of-court statement, with the leave of the court. where that witness is too frightened to testify, or to continue testifying. The important element is the leave of the court. The court will have an opportunity to
1128
determine whether the reasons put forward by, and on behalf of, the party who seeks such leave are found to be capable of falling within the type of reason that would deny the court the advantage and privilege of having live evidence before it.
Leave can be given only in circumstances where to do so is in the interests of justice. It replaces existing powers to admit statements of frightened witnesses under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. This provision plays an important part in ensuring that the evidence of frightened witnesses can be heard by the court, where appropriate.
The list outlining the species of issues capable of causing fear, to which the noble Lord referred, are simply examples rather than an exhaustive list. Any of those issues would be subject to the court applying the interests of justice test.
Amendment No. 153A proposes that leave can be granted to admit a statement of a frightened witness only where such steps as may reasonably be taken to address the fear have been taken. We understand why the noble Lord should raise that as a concern, but witnesses in such positions are now increasingly concerned by a wide variety of issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, mentioned the use of screens. He knows that they are often used for vulnerable children, rape victims and others who have been genuinely terrified and would find it almost intolerable to be in the same room as the alleged assailant. In an effort to make witnesses feel more confident, we have also taken advantage of the use of video-link facilities and other opportunities. Those issues will be in the court's mind when deciding whether the interests of justice are served by an agreement that evidence can he led as opposed to taking advantage of all the other opportunities, such as screens, video-link evidence or otherwise, in determining the application.
We recognise that the problem of reluctant witnesses is serious, and that much more needs to be done to ensure that courts receive the best possible evidence. As the noble Lord knows, there is a difference between a witness who is reluctant and one who is genuinely fearful. As part of our wider programme to improve the treatment of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, we are piloting new witness care arrangements in eight areas: West Mercia, Warwickshire, London, South Yorkshire, Essex, Gwent, North Wales—I am sure that that will give the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, a modicum of pleasure—and the West Midlands. That will result in much earlier and more accurate identification of witnesses who may be subject to intimidation, or who feel that they may be at risk.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. It gives me much pleasure to hear mention of North Wales. I understand that the Question whether Clause 109 stand part is in this group. In that respect, I ask: what do the words,
"is to be widely construed",

1129
add to the clause? Is there a statutory precedent for the use of those words or are the Government trying to introduce an amended canon for judicial construction of the clause?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: One of the difficulties about the issue of fear, as the noble Lord will know, is that there are many witnesses who will experience genuine fear, but the cause of that fear may differ. The court has to identify whether the fear is real, whether it is pertinent, or whether it would prevent the person from appearing, as opposed to necessarily being restrictive about the source from which that fear would spring. I cannot tell Members of the Committee whether this phraseology has been used in other legislation—not least, because I have had about one and a half hours' sleep. Currently, I cannot bring any to mind, but I can certainly write to the noble Lord about this issue if I find any such example.
I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords. All the pilots about which I spoke are exploring a one-stop approach, with better communication and information, better risk management and better individual case management of witnesses who may need additional support to get to court and to give best evidence. In relation to that, too, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Carlile, if further information is sought.
Notwithstanding that we shall continue to do all we can to support witnesses so that they feel able to give live evidence, we also understand that there is a real issue for those who are fearful, whether by intimidation or any other reason, and are unable to do so. We want the evidence to be available to the court if it believes that, in the interests of justice, it is necessary to admit it in this way.
Clause 109 does not attempt to provide an exhaustive definition of what may constitute a sufficient basis of fear. Instead, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, Clause 109(3) states that fear should be interpreted widely. That is the reason. It is drafted in the terms used in the Law Commission's draft Bill and seeks to achieve a compromise between, on the one hand, the difficulty of setting in legislation a comprehensive list of the circumstances in which fear justifies the reception of a hearsay statement and, on the other hand, the danger that in the absence of any definition, a court might hold that a particular kind of fear is not what Parliament meant.
Amendment No. 153B seeks to remove this interpretation, which we do not think is helpful. We believe that it is a helpful guide to the courts as to what may be considered as constituting a "fear" for the purpose of this provision. If the reference was removed, it would mean that the courts might consider that fear of injury to others or financial loss was not what was intended to be covered by Parliament under the scope of fear. That would be undesirable. It is really for the courts to determine whether the quality of fear experienced by the witness is such as to make the interests of justice weigh in favour of allowing this
1130
evidence in written form, as opposed to permitting it in a live form. Therefore, the ambit of this clause enables the interests of justice to be better served.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: May I ask the noble Baroness whether the phraseology used in this clause implies that a "fear of financial loss" might be a reasonable justification for not coming to court to give evidence?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: This is a question of quantum and nature. One would have to balance the fear of financial loss against the interests of justice. If, for example, someone said, "I don't want to come to court because I shall lose an hour or two's worth of extra money", that is one thing. However, if the witness is out of the jurisdiction and would lose all forms of gainful employment because he happened to operate in a narrow sphere, and if he were able to convince all concerned that his work was something that he would be incapable of replacing and would be bound to bring about a form of nervous psychosis, that is quite another matter.
We have a very broad spectrum. It is for the court to exercise good sense and judgment and to consider whether the reasons given by the witness are such that it believes that the interests of justice demand that the evidence should properly be admitted. I know that from his long experience, not least as a former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord will know how carefully and jealously the judges of England and Wales and, I dare say, Scotland as well, will guard the necessity for the interests of justice to be preserved. We think that the phrase gives them the flexibility to so determine. It has been included simply so that it is not a species which is automatically excluded from the court's consideration. Whether it is persuasive will depend on the facts of the case.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have to say that I am completely dissatisfied with the explanation of why the fear of financial loss should make it possible for the prosecution to read a statement in a criminal case where the liberty of the subject is involved. The kinds of circumstances referred to by the noble Baroness seem unlikely to occur at that level.
May I suggest that a pilot scheme covering fear of financial loss is also run in Ceredigion, in addition to those set up in North Wales and Gwent? We might receive some examples from that part of the world which would assist us more. I am afraid that only my noble friend Lord Carlile will understand the significance of that remark.
We shall come back to this matter because it is important. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 153B and 154 not moved.]
Clause 109 agreed to.
Clauses 110 to 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 [Multiple hearsay]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 155:
Page 74, line 4, leave out from "deceased")" to end and insert "only a statement by a person to whom the original statement was made is capable of admission in criminal proceedings as evidence of a matter stated in the original statement (so that a statement by B, but not A, may he admitted as evidence of the fact that C shot the deceased)"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 155 and to speak at the same time to the Question whether Clause 114 shall stand part of the Bill. Clause 114 takes us into a still more delicate set of issues, this time concerning the admissibility of multiple hearsay. I shall speak both to the amendment and to the Question whether the clause shall stand part because, as noble Lords will appreciate, the issues are closely intertwined. Although this is an important and serious matter, I shall speak briefly because many of the concerns and issues were raised in our debate on Clause 107 stand part, which concerned single hearsay.
As I have said before, we agree with the recommendations of the General Council of the Bar and the Criminal Bar Association and we welcome attempts to codify the complex rules of hearsay. However, I am afraid that we cannot support the Government's proposals in Clause 114 for the inclusion of multiple hearsay in this Bill.
Multiple hearsay concerns not only one statement not made in oral evidence but a series of statements. Therefore all the reservations and concerns that we have in regard to the inclusion of hearsay, which were raised in the debate on Clause 107 stand part, are multiplied and reinforced in regard to the provisions of Clause 114.
Amendment No. 155 seeks to limit potentially flawed evidence which we believe would cause inconsistencies and unfairness in a trial if the clause were allowed to pass unamended. I shall not repeat the detail of my arguments on Clause 107 stand part. I shall confine myself to pointing out that any hearsay may be inaccurate or mistaken; it is easily manufactured; it is difficult to challenge; it is difficult for a jury to test; and it cannot be tested on oath as the maker of the statement will not be standing before the court to give direct oral evidence. If we are concerned about hearsay, how much more should we be concerned about multiple hearsay?
The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised the point—it was also raised by Justice—that the Bill does not expressly prevent a person being convicted on the basis of hearsay or multiple hearsay alone. It concluded that there was a significant risk that,
"the provisions as currently drafted would lead to violations of the right to a fair trial under ECHR Article 6.1 and 6.3(d), a fair trial provision which provides the right to examine witnesses called against the accused".
The Criminal Bar Association has highlighted the case of Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. It states that cases such as Unterpertinger v Austria, Kostovski v Netherlands and Saidi v France illustrate the reluctance of the Strasbourg
1132
court to accept that the use of hearsay evidence is compatible with a defendant's right under Article 6.3(d) to examine, or to have examined, witnesses against him.
If we have to accept the introduction of the use of potentially unreliable evidence into our court system, we firmly believe that it should be first-hand hearsay only. It should not be extended to what could come down to, in my non-legal words, a series of Chinese whispers—"He overheard a conversation in which he heard A say that he had heard B boasting about killing C". Could or should such statements have a place in our judicial system? I beg to move.
Lord Renton: As we have voted against Clause 107, Clause 114 becomes largely irrelevant. But I am sure that my noble friend is justified in moving his amendment because, alas, there is a reference in subsection (1) of the clause to Clauses 109 to 113, which we have left in the Bill.
However, now that Clause 107 has been ruled out of the Bill, I would expect the Government to consider whether Clause 114 makes any sense at all. If they decide that it should be left in the Bill for some purely technical reason—which I would find surprising—perhaps the amendment moved by my noble friend is fully justified.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I speak to Amendment No. 156, which is grouped with Amendment No. 155. Clause 107 has gone from the Bill and therefore I do not propose to say anything further.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I will therefore confine my remarks to Amendment No. 155. I should make clear that the Government very much share the concern of noble Lords about the genuine risks involved with multiple hearsay and the danger that unreliable or manufactured evidence might go in if there are not adequate safeguards in the Bill. Amendment No. 155 would prevent multiple hearsay from ever being used in our criminal courts. While I appreciate the concerns that have prompted the amendment, we believe that it would set the hearsay clock back too far and that it is over-prescriptive in preventing the courts considering reliable evidence.
Currently, multiple hearsay is prima facie admissible in business documents in England and Wales under Section 24(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, provided that each person in the chain has received the information in the course of a trade, business or profession. Many of these documents, as noble Lords will know well, will have passed through the hands of several people. However, as each business document is inherently reliable, there is no substantially increased risk of error or fabrication at each stage. Therefore, it is right that such evidence should be admissible.
The effect of the amendment is that the courts would be prevented from considering routine business documents which everyone accepts are properly admissible in criminal cases and which the Law

1133
Commission concluded worked well and without injustice. I am therefore bound to resist the amendment.
Clause 114 is an important safeguard in addressing dangers posed by multiple hearsay. It seeks to establish the general principle, subject to limited exceptions, that if a witness is unavailable to testify, their written statement cannot be used to prove other admissible hearsay evidence. This would prevent the admission of hearsay within hearsay unless the earlier statement can be proved by an inherently more reliable form of hearsay statement such as a business document or where the multiple hearsay is of such exceptional probative value that the court is able to exercise its discretion to admit a series of statements in the interests of justice under Clause 107(1)(d), as it then was. I am responding to the comments in this way because while I appreciate the provision has gone, it is important to understand how we saw this fitting in.
We recognise that this is a complex area where some common law jurisdictions have taken a more liberal approach to the automatic admission of multiple hearsay than is proposed in the Bill. The formulation of the rule in Clause 114 follows the approach taken by the Law Commission in its draft Bill. We believe that such a safeguard against multiple hearsay is necessary. It serves to differentiate the exceptional circumstances in which it may be appropriate to admit multiple hearsay from those where the risks would be too great. I hope that with that explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will feel content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I thank my noble friend Lord Renton for his support for these amendments and the noble Baroness for her explanation of the Government's thinking. She remains remarkably lucid, even on an hour and a half's sleep.
The core of our concern is that we are moving from reliable hearsay, which we can get our minds around, to reliable multiple hearsay. That having been said, the Minister made two very valid points. She referred to the issue of routine business documents being excluded and the safeguards that have been built in to the Bill. We would like a chance to read what she said and consider it further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 114 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: It seems to me abundantly plain from the discussion we have just had and the decision to strike out Clause 107 from the Bill that the Government really should consider not only the drafting of this clause, which has two references to Clause 107, but its content, which is dependent upon Clause 107 to a great extent. It is irrelevant and unnecessary and, I suggest, undesirable. It could lead
1134
to injustice. I do not know whether my noble friend has decided to move that Clause 114 be left out, but I hope that the Government will seriously consider doing so between now and Report.
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clauses 115 to 118 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 119 [Court's general discretion to exclude evidence]:
Lord Thomas of Gresfordmoved Amendment No. 160:
Page 76, line 37, at end insert "including the power to exclude prosecution evidence where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value"
The noble Lord said: We come to the general discretion of the court to exclude evidence. This clause ensures that in every case where hearsay evidence is introduced there will be a double application: the first under the relevant clause—whether one to replace Clause 107, Clause 114 or whatever—and the second under Clause 119. The clause introduces the interesting concept that a court,
"may refuse to admit a statement as evidence of the matter stated if…the court is satisfied that the case for excluding the statement, taking account of the danger that to admit it would result in undue waste of time, substantially outweighs the case for admitting it".
Undue waste of time? That strikes at the root of the criminal justice system. Undue waste of time is a difficult concept to define. What is undue and what is a waste of time, when we are considering the liberty of the subject?
However, our amendment is to subsection (2). The Explanatory Notes state:
"Subsection (2) preserves both the existing common law power for the court to exclude evidence where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value and the discretion contained in section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in relation to the admission of unfair evidence".
All that we seek to do through the amendment is to write into the Bill the words in the Explanatory Notes. I do not understand how the Government can object to that, although we should probably be satisfied if the noble Baroness would make it absolutely clear that the power of the court to exclude evidence where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value is maintained and that it relates to every other provision in this chapter dealing with hearsay evidence. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Clause 119 indeed provides the court with a general discretion to exclude an out of court statement, if it is satisfied that the statement's probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that admitting it would result in undue waste of time. It will enable the court to exclude superfluous hearsay evidence.
The Law Commission took the view that it was important to provide the courts with some power to control the quantity and quality of out of court statements that are adduced. Evidence that is wholly irrelevant is not admissible at all—nor should it be—

1135
but out of court statements that have marginal relevance to the issues will be prima facie admissible, providing that they meet the criteria in Clause 103. The commission was concerned that in some cases that evidence will be superfluous to the issues and highlighted the risk that the parties might seek to use every conceivable piece of evidence, no matter how marginal its value, to bolster their case. We agree with the commission's conclusion that an exclusionary discretion is necessary to ensure that court time is not wasted and to address concerns that the greater admission of hearsay will lead to barely relevant evidence being adduced. Of course, the evidence that the prosecution seeks to adduce may still be excluded by the court in the exercise of its discretion at common law or under Section 78(1) of PACE. However, that would not provide a means of controlling the quantity and quality of evidence that would be used by the defence.
Clause 119(1)(b) will therefore enable the court to exclude superfluous hearsay statements from any party if it is satisfied that the value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the undue waste of time that its admission would cause. I hope that the noble Lord will feel content with that full explanation.
Amendment No. 160 would insert wording that would make it clear that the common law discretion continues to apply to evidence admissible under this part. I can offer the assurance that that is indeed the case, and is achieved by Clause 119(2)(b). I hope that will be of use to the noble Lord and practitioners.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Could the Minister just say the magic words that there is a power to exclude prosecution evidence where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value? If the Minister could say that, we would not need the amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have said it. I said that Clause 119 provides the court with the general discretion to exclude an out-of-court statement if it is satisfied that the statement's probative value is substantially outweighed by,
"the danger that to admit it would result in undue waste of time".
I have already said that probative value as defined in Section 78 includes prejudicial value.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I take it that the noble Baroness means prejudicial effect. The incantation was not exactly correct, but I believe that I have heard the message and I do not ask her to repeat it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 160A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 119 agreed to.
Clauses 120 to 128 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 129 to 132 agreed to.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 160B:
After Clause 132, insert the following new clause—
"IDENTITY PARADES
Where a victim or witness is unable, due to visual impairment, to identify a suspect visually, an auditory identity parade may be used."
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. I have been briefed on this matter by the RNIB, Scope and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association.
It is widely believed that the Government's intention behind the Bill is to make it easier to convict criminals. The Minister is aware that we on these Benches have considerable problems with a few of the ways in which they are trying to do that. However, without this amendment, the Bill could fail to provide effective protection for blind, partially sighted and other disabled people against harassment and assault inspired by disability prejudice, hatred and crime more generally.
With one in four disabled people having been subject to harassment on grounds of disability, rising to nine in 10 people with learning disabilities, the need for action is urgent. Under other later amendments, we shall consider the penalties relating to a hate element in an offence against a person with a disability.
The amendment relates to the ability of blind and partially sighted people to participate in obtaining justice, as can all other citizens, by using that sense that for many of them is particularly acute—the sense of hearing. We seek to include in the Bill the words,
"Where a victim or witness is unable, due to visual impairment, to identify a suspect visually, an auditory identity parade may be used".
Why is this amendment necessary? The RNIB, Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and NACRO have anecdotal evidence of police not always taking reports of crimes by visually impaired people seriously because the victims could not identify their assailant by sight. Assailants, of course, may be counting on that and may even target blind and partially sighted people on that basis. However, in some cases it might be possible for a visually impaired person to identify their assailant by the sound of their voice. If that were to happen, criminals would face an added deterrent and the partially sighted person could participate in justice in the same way as fully sighted people.
The evidence suggests that that is possible. Voice identity parades are already used in Holland. The first ever conviction for murder in the United Kingdom based on a voice identity parade was secured at the Old Bailey in December 2002. Assad Khan and Didar Bains were convicted after the witness, Raymond Sarong, identified Khan's voice in an auditory identity parade. A linguistics expert from Cambridge University was used to make sure that the process was sound. Detective Sergeant McFarlane was commended by the judge for his work. Speaking after the case, DS McFarlane said that he would be recommending the technique to the National Crime Faculty. Following that, the Metropolitan Police are drawing up their own guidelines for the use of voice identity parades in consultation with the RNIB.
RNIB and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association welcomed David Blunkett's response to the House of Commons Second Reading briefing on voice identity parades. The Home Secretary said:
"I am firmly of the view that voice recognition is feasible and I have asked my officials and scientific advisors to reconsider this area urgently to see what steps we can take to further encourage the use of voice recognition by police and criminal justice agencies".
Those words were a most welcome step forward. However, I wonder whether the Minister can give us an update on the progress of this issue and perhaps reassure us that this wholly reasonable addition to the toolkit of evidence available to the police will be available for use in the future. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I have put my name to this amendment, which of course I support. I think that both the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and I are hoping that the Minister will tell us that the amendment is not required not only because there is already permission for an auditory identity parade to take place, but because it will in future be used more frequently. The noble Baroness has already referred to the Khan and Bains case where a conviction was secured. Could the Minister say whether her understanding accords with mine—that such auditory identity parades are very infrequently used, and that there is perhaps a resistance to their use by the police or an uncertainty about how to proceed with them? Could the Minister tell us whether the Government are doing anything to encourage the further use of such identity parades where it is proper so to do?
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, quoted from the words in another place of the Home Secretary who directed his officials urgently to review this matter. That was hack in May. As the word "urgent" was used, one would think that something might have happened since then. I hope that we will learn that use of the word "urgent" by this Government means that something has happened since May.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before my noble friend replies to this important amendment, I think that there is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, did not address. I am not sure that I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, aright, but I think that she did address it.
In my view, it is highly important that the word "may" does not become "will". It is important that this provision should be used only in certain very limited circumstances. It can be used at the present time. That is a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, did not address.
In my view, while an auditory identity parade should be available, it should be used only in the rarest of cases. There is a danger that people who are subject to that kind of parade can all too easily be wrongly identified. We should not allow our natural emotions to be besmirched by that possibility.
1138
I cannot recall in my professional career an instance of such an auditory identity parade. No doubt there have been one or two cases but they are a minority. A special warning to the jury from the trial judge is appropriate in those circumstances. I do not oppose the idea at all but we have to be very careful about its use. I hope that my noble friend will concur on the matter.
5 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say straight away that I understand the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. I hope that in replying to the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay of St Johns and Lady Walmsley, I shall be able to quieten my noble friend's concerns.
I absolutely understand that the amendment put forward is not proposed to be acted upon but simply to be a means through which we can discuss the matter. The noble Baronesses will be aware that the amendment contains a number of flaws with which I need not trouble the Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was absolutely right to say that auditory identity parades already exist. They appear to be a very good idea. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, gave a specific example of where such a parade had worked well. The importance of that case is that some very careful and precise steps were taken to ensure that the validity of that identification could be assured. That was what was so interesting and commendable about the work that was done in that case.
PACE Code of Practice D deals with the procedures for identifying persons by police officers and allows the use of auditory identity parades where the police judge them appropriate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, auditory identity parades are not used frequently. We are currently involved in ongoing work to make voice identification procedures more effective and develop their use as an investigative tool. If necessary, amendments to PACE Code D can be made in the future.
As drafted at the moment, the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 160B would preclude those who have normal vision but are unable to see temporarily—for example, if their head is covered—from taking part in auditory parades. That seems an unnecessary restriction on the use of such parades. We are trying to look at the quality of the means by which such identification can be perfected as opposed to its being solely available to those who are either partially sighted or do not have sight at all.
The noble Baroness presses on the timing and how much has been done. We appreciate the sentiment in the amendment. For the reasons that I have given, we resist it, but we accept that the matter needs to be looked at more quickly. I am not able to confirm the time when the work will be concluded, but I can tell her that the matter is being energetically pursued at the moment. My right

1139
honourable friend the Home Secretary is seized of it and has expressed acute interest in it. I assure her that the spotlight on the issue has not gone away at all. It is being pursued as quickly as possible.
If I have more news on where we are by Report, I will be happy to give it. I cannot say that it will be quite as good as the noble Baroness would like, but you never know.
Lord Hylton: The Minister mentioned that the police already had discretion in the matter. Would she suggest to the police, perhaps through the Home Office, that, where the witness has either lost his sight or could not see on that occasion but recalls particular words having been used, the suspect might be asked to repeat those words so as to obtain an identification?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I can quite see why the noble Lord would make that suggestion. In the case referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, a procedure was adopted by the police that might provide an exemplar of how the matter could be dealt with in future. Best practice to get the best quality of evidence before the court in a more consistent way is one issue being looked at. I take on board what the noble Lord said.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her explanation and do not intend to keep her from her well-earned rest very long. I welcome her confirmation that the Government are committed to the idea and her explanation of how the detail of the process is being looked into. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and I. and the organisations that have briefed us would be most grateful for any progress reports she finds herself able to give us. It is particularly important that people with disabilities are given every opportunity to participate in justice. We are all behind that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 160BA had been re-tabled as Amendment No. 252C.]
Clauses 133 and 134 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Royal Assent
5.8 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Fireworks Act 2003,

National Lottery (Funding of Endowments) Act 2003,

1140

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Act 2003,

Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Act 2003,

Local Government Act 2003.

Fire Services Bill
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Powers of the Secretary of State]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert—
"(2A) The provisions of an order made under subsection (1)(a) shall have effect, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, as binding terms of the contracts of employment of fire brigade members to whom it applies, and not otherwise."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are very glad to return to the Bill which, since the sunset clause was accepted in another place, has been rather doomed to be considered in the dim, evening hours of the sunset, but we are happy to have an opportunity to look at a Bill that raises such important questions.
The amendment concerns the orders that the Secretary of State can make under Clause 1(1)(a) and their legal effect. It eventually concerns the question of the right of firefighters and their union to take industrial action, a right that, time and again in Grand Committee, the Government have stated they do not intend to modify through the Bill.
Unhappily, in trade union law, Parliament has a long history of passing statutes which trade unions believe and are told, quite genuinely, release them from a series of illegalities, but decisions of courts later prove that they do not have that effect. In 1875, the new TUC parliamentary committee came close to winding itself up after receiving assurances of that kind. That belief was later rapidly reversed in the face of court decisions in the era of the Taff Vale case and the like.
There were similar occurrences in 1906 and in the 1960s and 1970s. Indeed, disaster would have ensued were it not for the famous amendment, which is relevant here, moved by Sir Charles Dilke at a late stage of the passage of the Trade Disputes Act 1906. I say with all humility that the amendment, as far as firefighters are concerned, is of parallel importance.
As constructed, the Bill threatens the right of the firefighters' union to take industrial action, albeit that we recognise that the Government say, as other governments have said for more than a century, that that is not their intention. That is why we are here tonight. The issue was not discussed in the House of Commons and it was not properly considered in

1141
Grand Committee. It is therefore a very serious matter for your Lordships to consider before the Bill goes through this House. Let me explain.
There are two ways in which a provision in or under a statute, such as an order made by a Minister in this case, can affect conditions of employment or other rights and duties. The amendment would cure the ambiguity in the Bill concerning the legal nature of duties imposed by an order under Clause 1(1)(a) on conditions of service. The first way in which a statute or order may do so is by imposing a statutory duty. An example would be a regulation under statutory powers relating to health and safety at work. Those duties are enforceable against the employer, for example, by persons whose interests are involved—very often, the worker concerned.
The Bill contains an example in subsection (9), which states:
"It shall be the duty of a fire authority to comply with a direction contained in an order under this section".
The other way in which a statute or order can affect conditions of service is by imposing compulsory terms on the contract of employment. The legal force then operates not as a direct statutory duty, but through the medium of the contract of employment. That meaning is traditionally always made clear in the statute that wishes to adopt it. The primary example, which will be known to many of your Lordships, is the famous equality clause that was imposed to ensure equal pay between men and women in Barbara Castle's great Equal Pay Act 1970. Those duties are enforceable between employer and worker as a contractual condition of employment, because the Act says so.
There is another example in the Employment Act 2002, but the draft regulations in that Act have raised questions as to whether the Government are going to go through with that meaning. As has been said, it is not a difficult question of law. It is a simple proposition that has abundant authority from the courts and existing statute. It is that if the breach of a statute or, as here, an order—and by that I mean a group of work people not complying with, or not liking and acting against the effectuation of an order—is a breach of a contractual duty, the right to strike is undoubtedly retained, provided that the other conditions are met. Primarily, it must be action in furtherance of a trade dispute and the conditions imposed by statute as to ballots and other procedural requirements must all be met. Nothing in the amendment affects that. If, however, the statute or order imposes a direct statutory duty and that is contravened, the right to strike is lost—ballot or no ballot, trade dispute or no trade dispute.
That is not my proposition; it is the proposition of the Court of Appeal directed in Meade v Haringey Borough Council, which is reported in 1979 Industrial Cases Reports 494. In that case, two judges at the Court of Appeal made it quite clear. Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, stated at page 505, that the legislation,
"gives them [the union] immunity if they induce a person to break a contract. But it gives them no immunity if they induce a local authority to break a statutory duty",
1142
which was in issue in that case and which they had done. Lord Justice Eveleigh put it simply and in the same way. He said:
"They [the union] may in proper circumstances induce others to break a contract in furtherance of a trade dispute but they are not entitled to order or solicit a breach of statutory duty".
The Bill leaves the position unclear. I must refer to the Minister in Grand Committee. The way he put it leaves an ambiguity even in respect of the intended application. He said:
"To cut a long story short, if an order is issued under the Bill it directly operates on the conditions of service of the members of the fire brigade. The conditions of service are altered by the operation of the law immediately the order comes into force".—[Official Report, 14/7/03; col. 187.]
The quotation is longer, but if the Minister does not mind I shall not read the rest. It merely confirms that way of putting it. I have discussed it with a large number of colleagues and scholars on the subject and the majority view is that it appears clearly to impose a statutory duty to comply with the order.
Later at col. GC190, the Minister said that he was not sure what the effect of an amendment I was moving would be. He went on to say that,
"any terms imposed by order under the Bill will be contractual in any case. It is difficult to know whether the amendment adds or removes anything. In some ways I have just made an argument for accepting my noble friend's amendment but I shall certainly not do so as to do so would be fraught with difficulty and would constitute uncharted waters. As I say, the imposition of any terms by order under the Bill is contractual anyway and therefore limiting the definition would not have any effect overall. As I do not know whether the amendment adds or removes anything. I shall reject it for the time being. My noble friend is always free to explore the matter at a later stage".—[Official Report, 14/7/03; col. GC190.]
We are exploring it now. We are saying, "Please, put the second meaning clearly on the face of the Bill. If you do not, you raise the question for the courts as to the meaning Parliament has put upon the clause in question and here on the order in question". The meaning is not what the Minister may intend.
In Grand Committee, I referred to the recent speeches of the noble and learned Law Lords in the constitutionally important case of Wilson v Department of Transport, decided on 10th July 2003 and available in your Lordships' Judicial Office. To sum up the main thrust of the judgments, with which all five Law Lords agreed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, said:
The courts are strictly unable to take cognisance of the Minister's statements…they cannot control the meaning of an Act of Parliament…the courts must be careful not to treat the Ministerial or other statements as indicative of the objective intention of Parliament. Nor should the courts give a Ministerial statement, whether made inside or outside Parliament, determinative weight. It should not be supposed that members necessarily agreed with the Minister's reasoning or his conclusions".
The reason for the amendment is to introduce clarity into the Bill. We do not want to leave the question, as Lord Denning put it in another case in 1978, to be a matter of guesswork for the courts in deciding what Parliament intended. He said then that, where

1143
Parliament did not say what it meant in relation to the legal effect or nature of a statute or order imposing duties, he felt that it was a matter of,
"guesswork…you might as well",
said Lord Denning, with his usual aphorism to make the point deeply,
"toss a coin".
We do not believe that the courts should be left in the position of having to toss a coin to decide whether this is a direct statutory duty or an imposition of contractual terms operating by law as obligatory terms of the contract. We are of that view, especially because the right to strike depends on which choice one makes, as the Court of Appeal stated clearly in the case of Meade v Haringey Borough council in 1979.
In one sense, the amendment asks the Government simply to clarify what they appear to have said in one part of their explanation in Grand Committee; in another sense, it also asks them not to fall into the kind of pit into which previous governments since 1875 have, for some reason or other, regularly fallen. Why it has happened is a matter of great debate among those involved in the scholarship of the subject. There is no need for it to happen here.
I hope that the Minister can give us some encouragement that, if the Government do not like the precise words of the amendment, they will at least accept the thrust of it and guarantee that, by the end of Third Reading, we shall see the right to take industrial action, as they intend, properly inscribed in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My noble friend has developed the argument with particular reference to the uncertain state of the law. He cited many extremely persuasive authorities, including the judgments of Lord Denning. The Government may well say—to some extent, they have said—"Well, time will tell. It may turn out that you are right: it may turn out that we are right", although it is not absolutely clear that what they are saying is right They do not come before us and say, "Well, conditions of service are the same thing as contracts of employment". They do not go so far as to say that, but they say that there will still be a right to strike. One might say that whether there is a right to strike or whether the right to strike remains as it is at present is something which, in the fullness of time, the courts will decide.
However, I want to suggest, as I tried to do in Grand Committee, that the striker or would-be striker or the member of the fire service would not be able to wait or, I suggest, would be unlikely to be able to wait for the courts to decide. In that connection, my noble friend mentioned the debate that we had with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on 14th July, as reported at cols. GC 181 and so on of Hansard. I sought to explore the sense in which the Government could continue to say that a right to strike remained.
I think I understood—the point of this intervention is to see whether I understood correctly—what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said. It seemed to me that he was saying that if there was industrial action and it
1144
was lawful in the sense that there had been a ballot, nevertheless, if the Secretary of State issued an order and created a statutory duty, the chances are that it might well eventually transpire that that statutory duty would create a liability. If any worker was found to be frustrating that statutory duty that would be an unlawful act, but that it might not be; and the legal process might be gone through to find out.
The point was that the right to strike had not been got rid of. It might have been made a little more faint. It might have been temporarily put upon a shelf, but it would re-emerge. I sought to find out the sense in which it would re-emerge. I think that the noble Lord was saying (at col. GC 181 of Hansard) that. of course, so long as the workers conformed or the employers did nothing about the fact that they were not conforming in the enforcement of the statutory duty, the time would come when the terms and conditions of employment would be changed. People would return to work, there would be peace, tranquillity and quietness and a new right to strike would rise. The right to strike would still be there in exactly the same way as it is for the labour force. It would still be there because—I suggest solely because—there was no order.
As long as there was no order, as long as there was peace and quiet and, in the case of a dispute—the Minister said that the dispute could be about something which had been the subject of an order—as long as no industrial action was taken, or, as long as the union and the members only took industrial action after a lawful ballot, the right to strike in the case of the Fire Service would rise again in all its purity.
The trouble with that is that there might then be another order. The moment that order is introduced, the workers concerned would find that they did not have the right to strike. That is a very poor right to strike, which does not affect other workers. Other workers do not have the threat that if they start to have any effective industrial action they are made the subject of an order which cancels their right to strike for the time being.
If I am right and that is the sense in which the Government are saying that a right to strike will remain, I ask the House to think of the position of the individual workers. The chances are they will be dismissed. No doubt the employer will he told through guidance in legal journals and so forth: "This is not a breach of contract but the interruption of an imposed condition of service. You can dismiss those people".
What would be the position of the individual workers then? If the matter went to the current Master of the Rolls he may say that they are protected, but they will be on stones. That is the point. What would be the position of the chairmen and side members of industrial tribunals who find that people had been dismissed in that context? Of course, the union would come along and take the case to an industrial tribunal. Meanwhile, the individual worker is dismissed. Even if the tribunal found in his favour he would get only compensation; he would not get back his job. Then we would find out whether the Government is right or the

1145
noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is right. That is not enough, and that is not fair. That is not, in effect, a right to strike. It is a right to strike which the workers use at their peril; and it is a right to strike which can be interrupted effectively at any moment by the Secretary of State imposing an order. I ask the Government, therefore, to think again and to agree to this amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, this really is a very simple amendment. My two noble friends have advanced a great deal of legal argument in support of it. I do not want to follow down that path. It seems to be a simple question: if a union orders a strike in breach of a contract of employment and goes through all the processes required—balloting and so on—there would be immunity; but if the strike is in breach of a statutory order the union has problems. The issue is as simple as that.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the issue is even simpler than my noble friend Lady Turner states. Amendment No. 11 seeks to put on the face of the Bill that the provisions of any order under Clause 1(1)(a) about terms and conditions of service shall have effect as binding terms of the contracts of employment of fire brigade members to whom it applies. It is simple because we have already said that we propose that such orders should indeed take effect as new or revised contractual terms. That appears to be in effect stating the obvious.
The amendment adds nothing whatever to our intention. In fact it would produce a restriction of uncertain effect and offer opportunities for debate; and it offers absolutely nothing additional to fire brigade staff. I do not want to wind my noble friends up, but I have not heard from any modern practising academic or industrial relations expert to the effect that we have a problem with this part of the Bill. Therefore, on that basis, I invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am disappointed by that reply because—it would not be unfair to say—my noble friend suggests that it is nonsense to move this amendment. The Government may propose that the order takes effect by way of obligatory terms and conditions of employment. One is bound to ask why they do not propose it in the Bill. What on earth would they lose by making that clear in the Bill? What are they afraid of?
Secondly, is the Minister denying that where a legal duty is imposed by a statute, as in this Bill, it is for the courts to interpret—not for the Ministers to interpret if they have chosen to say nothing—what kind of legal duty it is? I refrained from pointing this out, but so many matters were raised by my noble friend's reply that I must put some of them on record. First, on the fire authority's duty in Clause 1(9), the Government go out of their way to make it clear that they are imposing a statutory duty. Why do they not adopt a similar
1146
clarification concerning the order on conditions of service? Conditions of service are not defined in the Bill. We are told what they include in a later subsection.
Furthermore, the Minister says that no writer. scholarly expert, or, as I understood him, anyone else he knows of, thinks that there is a problem. I invite him to stand up now and to say who he has consulted. I have consulted—I am not at liberty to divulge their names, but I shall certainly get them by Third Reading if they agree—a number of people of various types, shades and hues, not all of them necessarily of bad character under the Criminal Justice Bill, who take the view that there is a problem here. One even takes the view that the issue is both contractual and statutory.
Frankly, I do not think that we are at liberty to adopt such an interpretation. They all agree there is a problem, but my noble friend does not. What is this curious lethargy in trade union legislation? It is only for workers and their right to strike that these gaps are left. It happened in 1871, 1875 and even in 1906, 1913 and subsequent statutes, although not so much, I am proud to say, in the Labour Government's legislation in 1974 and 1992, when several problems of this sort were solved. Why do the Government want to create another one?
Since my noble friend has taken this attitude of blasésmugness, I wish to put on record the simple proposition that the union with a ballot and a trade dispute has the right to induce a breach of contract and is protected. A union with a ballot and a trade dispute does not have any protection, nor do its workers individually, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy has said, in respect of an inducement of a breach of statutory duty.
I wish to put on record the case of Meade v Haringey Borough Council of which the Minister, I say with great respect, appeared unfamiliar; and the case of the Department of Transport v Williams, (1993)—these are in all the books—in which the Lord Justice Dillon said that,
"anything which is illegal under any statute provides the unlawful means",
for tortious liability.
I wish to put on record the judgments of Associated British Ports v the TGWU(1989) in the Court of Appeal, of Rookes v Barnard(1964), of Stratford v Lindley(1965) and the case of Acrow Automation v Rex Chainbelt(1971). If the Minister is not familiar with those decisions, he should be by Third Reading.
I also refer to the case of Michaels v Taylor Woodrow(2001), Chancery 502, in which Mr Justice Laddie refused the entire authorities including four cases in the 1999–2000 era that manifestly support the point that this simple, clarificatory amendment is trying to make.
Whatever the intentions of the Government, are they really so proud and arrogant in their drafting of the Bill that they refuse to include a clear protection, which they say they intend, for a particular group of workers in the public service? I cannot understand the Government's position or the reply that we received

1147
today. The matter needs a great deal more work by those who advise the Minister and the Minister himself. I say that because—I must add this point because noble Lords who were not in Grand Committee will not have heard it and there are very few noble Lords present tonight to consider the rights of firefighters—an injunction can be obtained not by those who prove a final case, but by those who prove an arguable case.
There is no difficulty in law about that. There are problems about how that applies when the balance of convenience lies with the claimant and so forth. However, an arguable case has to be proved. is the Minister really saying that, with the Bill as drafted, without the clarification that we seek, there would never be an arguable case that an order under Clause 1(1)(a) imposed a statutory not a contractual duty? If he is saying that, your Lordships' eyebrows should reach beyond the ceiling.
This is a helpful amendment for the Government. They say that they want to make it clear that firefighters are not in any way discriminated against in terms of the normal rules of industrial action. We say the same, but it is not made clear in the Bill. Our amendment would make it clear, although it will not settle the question, as later amendments will show. There are other matters to be raised. As my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden said, this is the simplest of simple amendments to make progress on this matter. That is why we moved it, genuinely hoping for a positive response of some sort from my noble friend the Minister.
However, if there is no indication that this fundamental point which is coming to be well known in the trade union movement can be addressed properly and professionally by the Government, it will be necessary to return to the matter firmly at Third Reading to press the point with any noble Lords who are in any way concerned about the rights of workers under this Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert—
"(2B) An order made under subsection (1)(b) shall not affect "property" that consists in rights or duties arising from or under a contract of employment, and the provisions of such an order shall not directly or indirectly affect the conditions of service of fire brigade members.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a sense, the amendment is a mirror image of the one that I have just withdrawn. Although, until a few minutes ago, I had some hopes for it, they are now dimming as the sun sets. As the Bill stands, an order under Clause 1(1)(b) giving directions to fire authority employers could very easily have obligatory consequences that affect the conditions of work of firefighters. An example taken often in Grand Committee is the closure of a station. An order giving directions to close a station,
1148
or changes in the use of appliances on shift work, could have immediate results on employees' conditions of work.
The Government have stated that they do not mean that to happen, and the amendment throws no doubt on that intention. But there is abundant authority that the Government's intentions do not control the interpretation of the Act in the courts. If Parliament does its job—and this is the only House to debate the powers in detail—it is concerned with what the powers are that are placed on the statute book. To ignore that is to treat this House as a talking shop and a club where people stroll through the Lobbies without much consideration.
Not every order under Clause 1(1)(b) will necessarily affect the working conditions of members of a fire brigade. When we considered the provision in Grand Committee, the Minister said:
"I must make it clear—I think that I did so earlier—that directions to the tire authorities under Clause 1(1)(b) are not intended to be a direct or indirect way of affecting the employment contracts of fire brigade staff. I also gave the example that it could happen that a direction about the use of assets—the physical assets in a station—could have an impact on staff, but that is not the route by which we would seek to change the terms and conditions for staff. We have a power in Clause 1(1)(a) to do that directly—
that is a very interesting formulation—
"so there is no reason to use an indirect route. I can tell noble Lords that we have no plans to use any orders made under Clause 1(1)(b) to affect the rights arising from contracts for work or services. It might happen, purely as an incidental side-effect of a kind of order".
He went on to say:
"We do not want to use the power, and the Bill is drafted widely enough to cope with any disputes … I gave examples originally of appliances remaining in stations when they could be used by somebody else. Clearly, the public did not understand what happened during the previous dispute, so we must overcome that. If it were difficult or impossible to use the powers in respect of, say. an appliance or some specialist piece of equipment ‖ that was needed, we could not say to the public, 'Well, we would have liked to have an order to make sure that we could use an aerial platform, but we could not because it would have affected some exclusion in the Bill about contracts"".—[Official Report, 14/7/03; col. GC 194.]
By "contracts" the Minister meant contracts of employment.
We accept all that. But we accept also that, as the Minister said, there would be incidental effects on the working conditions of firefighters. Their duty would be not to do anything to disturb an order coming into effect and operation under Clause 1(1)(b). That is why we have drafted our amendment in its current form:
"An order made under subsection (1)(b) should not affect 'property"'—
it normally would—
"[in the form of] rights or duties arising from or under a contract of employment".
Rights and duties under a contract of employment are obviously included within the notion of property. The amendment also states:
"The provisions of such an order shall not directly or indirectly affect the conditions of service of fire brigade members".
That is what we are asking.

1149
We are taking the Government at their word. We are saying that Clause 1(1)(b) is a direct order to the fire authority on what to do as regards closure of stations, use of appliances and all the other things that the Government want to control by statutory duty. It does not affect the conditions of service, in law, of the firefighters. I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept that, except that the Minister says, as he said about the previous amendment, that it is all nonsense. With great respect, I do not think that is a reply worthy of the Government. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am unable to accept Amendment No. 12, irrespective of the care and consideration with which my noble friend moved it. Along with other amendments in a similar vein, it makes it difficult—almost impossible—for the Secretary of State to exercise the powers in the Bill that, ultimately, Parliament would give, powers that the elected House has, in principle, agreed that he should have.
The amendment is in two parts, both of which would limit the scope of the Secretary of State to issue orders under Clause 1(1)(b). The first part would prevent the use of the power to give directions about the use or disposal of property where that property consisted of rights and duties under contracts of employment. The second part would prevent the making of an order under Clause 1(1)(b), which would directly or indirectly affect the conditions of service of fire brigade members.
We discussed that in Grand Committee. The position is no different. What I said there is exactly what my noble friend repeated. If the Secretary of State were to judge that action to change terms and conditions of staff were necessary, he would have a direct route under Clause 1(1)(a) and he would not use Clause 1(1)(b). I have made that absolutely clear.
Notwithstanding that, I accept that, under Clause 1(1)(b), there might be an incidental consequence from a direction, for example, aimed at making available facilities or equipment to those trying to provide emergency cover. Nevertheless, I am unaware of any plans to use orders under Clause 1(1)(b) to affect rights arising from contracts for work or services. To be honest, if we were to accept the amendment, we could not make such a direction. It would be impossible, even if everyone agreed that the intention was appropriate and benign.
As I said, I cannot accept any amendment—I do not want to upset anyone—that simply seeks to frustrate or make impossible the effective use of the powers. That is what this amendment seeks to do; that is what the effect would be. The public would not understand it if they were denied the protection of crucial equipment because of an exclusion about contracts. Amendment No. 12 would put an arbitrary restriction
1150
on the powers in the Bill and contribute nothing to public safety. Therefore, I invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the Minister ended on the sort of note that he constantly injected in Grand Committee, which I can describe only as the habit of some midfield defence players: go for the man, not the ball. He said that the amendment sought to frustrate the Bill. I hope that he will think again about that. We are trying to get clarity into the Bill. We are trying to say what the Government say they intend. What the elected House has got to do with it, I do not know. It never discussed it; it did not discuss the previous amendment or this amendment or the matters concerning them. Nor did the Government choose to explain them to the other House.
We said all that in Grand Committee. I do not want to go over the ground of Grand Committee because, in retrospect, some of it was rather painful—just as that last remark was. We are not frustrating the Bill. We are genuinely moving amendments that concern especially—it is true—the persons employed in fire brigades, but also the fire authorities, the employers.
My noble friend has said, quite rightly, that if they thought about it, the Government would normally seek to make an order under Clause 1(1)(b), telling the fire authorities what to do in respect of the closure of stations, use of appliances and so forth; and, if they were to think of perfecting the conditions of employment for firefighters, they would make an order under Clause 1(1)(a). I quite understand that. But he is also obliged to accept once again, as he accepted in Committee, that an incidental effect of a Clause 1(1)(b) order where no Clause 1(1)(a) order is made, would be that it would affect or be likely to affect the conditions of work of firefighters.
We do not think that it is right for the Government or for Ministers to take that power. If they mean to affect the conditions of firefighters, tell them that by way of a Clause 1(1)(a) order, although, as we have just seen on the previous amendment, they are in a terrible muddle about how that legal effect would come about. If they intend a Clause 1(1)(b) order to affect only the fire authorities—as the Bill suggests in places, but the Government are now constrained to agree that it may affect others—then surely this should be cleared up.
I hesitate to put it this way, but I am not interested in my noble friend's plans, as he put it. He has said that the Government have no plans or intention to do this. However, if I am defending a firefighter or a union in court, I cannot refer to that. In its judicial capacity, the House of Lords told us that in July this year in the Wilson case. Does no one read any of what is said by the noble and learned Lords in our Judicial Committee? You cannot give that remark to a court as controlling the meaning of these clauses. We are asking for it be made clear on the face of the Bill that a Clause 1(1)(b) order does not affect, in the legal sense, the conditions of work of those employed in this public service.

1151
If we chose the wrong wording in the amendment, then of course that is another matter. But our intention is not to frustrate the Bill and it is quite shocking to hear my noble friend on the Front Bench return to that kind of language, which was used so often in Grand Committee. However, I shall refrain from going into that territory. We have put our arguments on the record and they stand as they are. If the Minister cannot think better before Third Reading, it may and certainly should be necessary to come back to this matter. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 1, line 17. leave out from "section" to "the" in line 18 and insert "save for an order made under subsection (1)(b) which he declares for the reasons which he states to be required by reason of an emergency"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is very similar to the amendment I moved in Grand Committee, but with an important difference which I shall explain. It seeks to remove from subsection (3) the words,
"that fixes or modifies conditions of service of fire brigade members".
The effect of this would be automatically to oblige the Secretary of State to consult in relation to what is provided for in subsection (1)(b), which states,
"give specific or general directions to fire authorities about the use or disposal of property or facilities".
It seemed to me in Grand Committee that decisions which affect the provision of local facilities—either the disposal of property or the use to which that property is put, whether leased or otherwise disposed of—could have an effect on the workforce in that particular location. There may be less reason to have a certain type of person or there may be a need for a different kind of workforce. This could have a major effect on fire service employees working and probably living in the area. It therefore seems entirely reasonable that an obligation should be put on the Secretary of State to consult about the conditions of service for fire brigade members in the way suggested.
That still seems reasonable to me, but I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say in Grand Committee. He made the powerful argument that there could be emergency situations in which the amount of time required for a consultation process would simply not be available. He said that,
"there could sometimes be a need for speed so that the public property is protected".—[Official Report, 3/7/03; col. GC 265.]
Our new amendment attempts to meet that valid argument. We seek to insert the words,
"save for an order made under subsection (1)(b) which he declares for the reasons which he states to be required by reason of an emergency".
In other words, under normal circumstances consultation about these matters would be expected to take place, but in an emergency of course it is accepted that there may very well be no time for this to be done.
1152
We have attempted to meet the requirements as set out by the Minister in Grand Committee and I hope that he will find our proposed solution acceptable. I said in Grand Committee that I would take note of what he had said and then come back to this on Report in an attempt to deal with the valid arguments that he then advanced. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I had hoped that it would not be necessary to move the amendment because, in Committee, we moved an amendment seeking to limit to emergencies the operation of orders under Clause 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b). We set out a notion of what an emergency might be, including a likely set of events which the Minister could see would need rapid action. That is why, as my noble friend Lady Turner said—I shall not repeat her quotation—we have taken note of what the Minister said and repeated it, in a brief form, in Amendment No. 14, under which the Secretary of State must declare, for the reasons he states, that the action needed is required by reason of an emergency. I believe that that was the only argument raised against our attempt previously to include Clause 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b) orders in the clause. I hope the amendment will be given favourable consideration.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I understand why my noble friends have come back on this issue. In many ways—although I do not have it immediately to hand—the amendment is consequential on an earlier amendment we have discussed. I believe it may have been Amendment No. 1.
Basically, the amendment seeks to change the drafting of Clause 1(3) to bring it into line with what was proposed in Amendment No. 1—it was Amendment No. 1 to which I was referring—about having to declare an emergency before using the powers in the Bill. The consultation required in Clause 1(3) would continue to apply to an order about terms and conditions of service but it would extend to any order made under Clause 1(1)(b) where the Secretary of State failed first to declare an emergency.
The current negotiating body referred to in subsection (3), as I understand it, is the National Joint Council, the remit of which covers terms and conditions of service—pay and conditions, in other words. It is the pay and conditions negotiating body. It has no role whatever in relation to other Fire Service matters, to the best of my knowledge. We therefore do not think it appropriate to require that body to be consulted about the use of Clause 1(1)(b) powers.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to put this point to him. Has he not just admitted that the Clause 1(1)(b) order may well incidentally affect the conditions of work of firefighters? Would that not be a proper subject for discussion?
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords. My noble friend puts his question in a somewhat substantive way. It is not the way in which I have put the issue about how a

1153
Clause 1(1)(b) order may have an incidental consequence on conditions. That would not be its central role. If the central role was to do something about the terms and conditions of individual members of the Fire Service, clearly the Secretary of State would use Clause 1(1)(a). We would consider that before we used Clause 1(1)(b) to ensure that there was not a substantial change in conditions.
We live in the real world and we have accepted that there might be an incidental consequence on conditions as a result of using a Clause 1(1)(b) order, but that would not be its main purpose. The reasons I have given on the previous amendment would cover such consequences. But it is not a substantial issue to be written on the face of the Bill that the negotiating body—which is a pay and conditions negotiating body—will have a statutory role in all other Fire Service matters outside the narrow confines of pay and conditions. Although I do not have the amendment immediately to hand, it appeared to us consequential on Amendment No. 1, and therefore stands and falls with it. In the light of our earlier discussion, I cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister is of course quite right. Had Amendment No. 1, which we proposed at the previous sitting, been accepted by the Government, it would not be necessary to move this amendment, because it would have covered the whole of the Bill. The intention of what we can call the emergency amendment that we moved and I spoke to was to cover all the powers in the Bill. But because it was not accepted, it was felt necessary to follow what had been said in Committee about emergencies and to do so in this way.
I am not entirely happy about the Minister's response. He says it is not a substantial issue but, as he accepts, there could be circumstances in which conditions would be affected quite materially. Therefore, I am not at all persuaded that the amendment is unnecessary. But in the light of what has been said this afternoon, I beg leave, at least for the time being, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
"(3A) Where a report shows that there is an agreement between the members of the negotiating body concerning matters dealt with in his proposals under subsection (1)(a), the Secretary of State shall, save in an exceptional situation, withdraw any proposals which are in conflict with that agreement and engage in further consultation with the members of that body.
(3B) An exceptional situation exists when the Secretary of State declares that the terms of an agreement made by the members are unacceptable for the reasons set out in his declaration, such reasons which may include objections to the increases in pay or changes in conditions of service or similar associated matters contained in the agreement."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this amendment is to try to pick up various statements made in Committee. The Minister was at that time trying to explain what the attitude of the Secretary of State would he where there was agreement between the
1154
parties. We tried, in a number of amendments, to say surely a power as powerful as the power in this Bill would be introduced and enforced only in extreme circumstances. For much of the time, the Minister was prepared to say that. In almost all the concrete examples which he placed before us of the circumstances in which the powers would be used, there was undoubtedly an element of emergency. Indeed, at one stage, I thought he said that the recent 12-month dispute between the union and the employer was not an emergency. That made us feel that the emergency which would justify the use of the Bill would be very exceptional—terrorism, perhaps.
That being the case, it seemed reasonable to suggest that when there was an agreement between the parties and no question of an industrial dispute of any kind—and, we would have thought, no emergency, because the two parties had agreed among themselves—surely it would be possible to say on the face of the Bill, if we can get the wording right, that in those circumstances the Bill would not be used. But we have tabled this amendment because it was not possible to get the Minister to agree. At one stage, he went so far as to tell us what would be the circumstances in which there was an agreement, under which, nevertheless, the Government would be justified in imposing the powers in the Bill. He said:
"I was asked whether, if employers and trade unions agree, they should not therefore be allowed to carry on. I made the point that to differentiate between the public and the private sector, the question is who pays. If the employer is prepared to pay for a negotiated deal, fine. In the public sector, the employer, at the end of the day will be local government or Parliament, in the sense of disbursing taxpayers' money".—[Official Report, 3/7/03; col. GC274.]
So there was a distinction between the public and private sectors.
He gave examples of other circumstances, the most important of which was where, although there was agreement between the two sides, the employer and the union may have got together or ganged up, so that in the public interest a reserve power had to be left for where a negotiated settlement, although agreed. was not in the public interest. The circumstances would be either that the union was offered too much money or that there was insufficient improvement in productivity. The Government would need reserve powers for that. Well, OK.
So we have tried through the amendment to cover those circumstances. The amendment states:
"Where a report shows that there is an agreement between the members of the negotiating body concerning matters dealt with in his proposals under subsection (1)(a), the Secretary of State shall, save in an exceptional situation"—
not in an emergency, in an exceptional situation—
"withdraw any proposals which are in conflict with that agreement and engage in further consultation with the members of that body".
Note that we are not saying that his veto can be overruled. We are not saying that in those circumstances, the parties can say, "Unless you can specify an exceptional situation, we are free to agree". We are saying that the Secretary of State should take it away and think about it and that the exceptional situation should be defined in the Bill.

1155
That seems reasonable. We therefore state in proposed new subsection (3B):
"An exceptional situation exists when the Secretary of State declares that the terms of an agreement made by the members are unacceptable for the reasons set out in his declaration".
We even go so far as to as to state what they might be: the reasons,
"may include objections to the increases in pay or changes in conditions of service or similar associated matters contained in the agreement".
I know, because I have had it before and shall have it again, that the Government will say that those words are not reasonable, sensible, adequate, enough or sufficient. OK, but we do not stick by our words; we stick by a principle. The Government can take it away and write it again; they can do what they like. The Minister said that, most of the time, the authority of the order would be used when there was an emergency—we are setting emergencies aside—and that he could not accept an agreement when there was an exceptional situation, so why cannot we specify in the Bill what may constitute those unacceptable conditions?
That is reasonable and sensible and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says. Of course, if he says, as he said again tonight—I must mention it, although my noble friend has already done so—that every time we try to change how the Bill works, we are frustrating it, we will not get far. None of the amendments is what is conveniently called a wrecking amendment—at least not intentionally. They are not intended to make it impossible to use the power; not at all. They are intended to improve the Bill.
If the Bill is presented as impossible to improve and if all attempts to change, modify or restrict its application are frustrations, we will not get far. I suggest that that is not how amendments are treated in Parliament or regarded in this House. I therefore hope that the Minister will give the amendment friendly consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: As the Bill has a relatively short time to go, with only Third Reading left, we must now envisage that the Government are going to reject every amendment. I had not really thought about that until this evening; I had expected some argument about words or exact phrases, but the amendments will simply not be considered.
What my noble friends and I, who have tabled the amendments, cannot accept is that the Bill somehow originated in a drafting immaculate conception and is perfect. That is the Government's position so far, and I hope it will not extend to the amendment. With my greatest respect to my noble friend the Minister—and he is my noble friend—he has already reminded me tonight, as I thought I would not be reminded, of that great member of our party, Ernest Bevin. One of Ernest Bevin's great remarks when he did not like what was about to be said in a speech was, "You don't want to open that Pandora's Box, because you never know what Trojan Horses will leap out". There is a certain flavour of that about some of my noble friend's answers to amendments.
1156
I shall quote in full the passage to which my noble friend Lord McCarthy referred. On 14th July in Grand Committee (at col. GC 204 of Hansard), there was an exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and my noble friend Lord Rooker. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway said:
"With respect, I hope that I may ask the noble Lord a question. He said the Bill would be used only if the parties"—
that is, the parties to the national joint council—
"disagreed. That is not quite what he means. He said it but I do not think that he meant it. What he meant was, if the parties agree with what we want them to do, we shall not use the Bill. But if they do not—"
There then followed an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; namely. "Yes, sure". After which, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, went on to remark:
"But if the parties do not agree with what we want them to do, we shall impose the Bill"—
"we" meaning the Government. The noble Lord. Lord Rooker, replied:
"That is entirely the case. The noble Lord expressed the matter perfectly. The two parties could have a sweetheart arrangement—it is not unknown between employers and trade unions to have a sweetheart arrangement—and say to the Secretary of State. 'By the way, we have agreed; here is the bill'. We would say, 'Sorry, we are not paying the bill'. We do not have a blank cheque".—[Official Report, 14/7/03; col. GC 204.]
There are two possible answers to that argument. As the Government frequently wish to refer to common sense and real life, presumably the Secretary of State would have done his best to persuade the fire authority employers not to enter into such an agreement. We take the case where they have, or where the parties have come to agreement—it could even be within the Secretary of State's total expenditure provisions. They might have come to a deal in which the ways of implementing the agreement were very different from those that the Secretary of State wanted. If the parties agree on that, with the help of conciliation, mediation, arbitration or in some other way, we believe that the Secretary of State should be asked to pause before he goes ahead with the order. That is all that, the amendment says. I cannot see what is wrong with that, and I hope that we shall get some acceptance of that approach.
The amendment accepts the spirit—and in many ways, the words—of my noble friend the Minister in Grand Committee. It places them in the Bill together with the following suggestion—namely, where, subject to that, the parties are agreed, the Secretary of State shall withdraw the present proposals that are in conflict with the parties' agreement and engage in some further consultation with the members of the NJC. I hope that the Government can accept the spirit of the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I know that it is Report stage, but I should like to ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down. Does he accept that Amendment No. 15 is wholly dependent on Amendment No. I, that there is a declaration before

1157
the emergency and that the whole machinery is dependent upon that? Is not Amendment No. 15 wholly dependent on Amendment No. 1?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, in the spirit of the previous deliberations on the Bill, I could say that I had already sat down. However, I was semi-sedentary, so I shall answer the noble Lord's kind intervention.
The word "emergency" appeared in Amendment No. 14, not in this amendment. We have used the term "exceptional situation"—although I suppose that might involve an emergency. We understood that to be the objection to the case in which the Secretary of State says, "You may have come to an agreement between you—the parties to the NJC—but I cannot accept that". One instance that we took was the main instance that my noble friend the Minister gave whereby increases in pay or changes in conditions of service, and the like, are contained in the agreement of the parties. So that could be an emergency—I quite accept that—but it is not limited to an emergency. It is limited to exceptional situations of the sort that the Minister described, or so we thought. Perhaps the noble Lord thinks that I am wrong in that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord please to look at new subsection (3B) regarding,
"reasons set out in his declaration".
That declaration, and the only reference to a declaration, is a declaration before an emergency. Surely the noble Lord understands that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I do not understand that. If we had meant a declaration of emergency, we would have said so. The noble Lord really must look at the words we have proposed.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot promise not to use the word "frustrating" again, but I will try. What I can say to my noble friend, believe it or not, is that all the amendments on the Marshalled List have been considered by the policy Ministers involved and myself. Indeed, they have been reconsidered since we started Report stage. So it is not true that we are not considering the amendments.
I take on board my noble friend's old quote about the Trojan horse, but this Bill is not a Trojan horse. This Bill is precise and clear. We have made it crystal clear that we do not want to use it and that its life is limited. It is true that, by using the Bill, the Secretary of State would impose pay and conditions as set out in the relevant order. We are not doing this furtively.
Amendment No. 15 adds further conditions to the consultation arrangements in subsection (3). While it states that where the negotiating body—in this case the national joint council—reaches an agreement on aspects of a proposal by the Secretary of State, the
1158
Secretary of State should withdraw any parts of the proposal that are in conflict with what the negotiating body has agreed and then enter into further consultation. Only in exceptional circumstances can the Secretary of State not withdraw the non-agreed parts of his proposal. To make use of that exception, the Secretary of State must declare that an exceptional situation exists because the terms of the agreement are unacceptable for reasons set out in the declaration. The possible reasons are not listed exhaustively—about which I make no big complaint—but examples include objections to increases in pay or changes in conditions of service.
The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to consult on the proposals made under subsection (1)(a). He is required, as the Bill states, to consider the report of the negotiating body. It is therefore open to him. should the negotiating body disagree with aspects of a proposal, to carry on discussions and seek a resolution. The Bill provides for all that to happen, and we would expect that to happen. However, given certain circumstances, there must come a time when, if necessary, the Secretary of State can push through his proposal. The whole purpose of the Bill is to enable us to draw a line under any future dispute. We hope that it will not come to that, but if it does we need to be able to act with reasonable dispatch. That is what this is about.
The examples given in the amendment of exceptional situations in which the Secretary of State can declare that the terms of an agreement made by the members of the negotiating body are unacceptable are both limited and vague. According to Amendment No. 15, the Secretary of State can object to an agreement on the basis of an increase in pay. Can he also object to the variation in pay between different ranks? We do not know what "similar associated matters" are. The long and short of it—and I do not want to use the "F" word that upsets my noble friends—is that Amendment No. 15 places unnecessary restrictions on the Secretary of State's powers to make the orders under (1)(a), which as I said would be used to draw a line under a dispute only after all the normal rules and negotiated procedures have failed. Those are the only circumstances in which they would be used. We cannot accept those unnecessary restrictions on the Secretary of State's powers at the point that we would have reached in a dispute. Therefore, I request that my noble friend withdraws his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, it seems to me that the Minister is contradicting himself. For a large part of the time he tells us that the relevant provision is already on the face of the Bill. Apparently, the Bill provides an almost infinite number of opportunities for consultation. If that is the case, the addition of the provision that we are discussing is not the end of the world. It is part of the Bill. It is what the Bill is in favour of. The Bill is a consultation Bill until the chopper falls. That is what the amendment says. The amendment does not say—as one or two of our amendments in Committee said—that when there is an

1159
agreement between the parties, for example, on the application of an agreement and what it means—not a new agreement—the Government might consider the possibility of saying that the Secretary of State cannot turn it over. But we have dropped that. We are getting more moderate all the time but it does not do us any good.
What we are saying here is that there could he further consultation with the members of the body. I am bound to say that the Government will get in a terrible mess with the Bill and this group of workers when the information and consultation directive is finally enforced because they will not be able to dismiss all these matters and say that they will not consult about how workers are affected by being moved from one place to another. They will have to consult on such matters if they are to honour the directive. They might as well get used to that. We have tried to make the provision as much like the ideas of the Government, as expressed by the Minister, as possible. When particular circumstances apply, surely there could be the limitation that we propose on the use of the Bill.
I did not want to quote from the White Paper, Our Fire and Rescue Service because when we quoted from it in Committee the Minister did not like it. He gets frustrated when we do that. But the fact is that the Government are in a mess about what they are going to do with regard to pay in the Fire Service and the circumstances in which they will insist that pay is either reasonable or unreasonable and impose their order. Paragraph 7.14 of Our Fire and Rescue Service states:
"Finally, we intend to take powers to give guidance to any negotiating body which it would have to take into account in its work. The government has a legitimate interest in the outcome of pay negotiations and the impact on public sector pay policy"—
I must say I am pleased to hear that we have a pay policy—
"as well as the impact on the operation of the service"—
that is the works side of the thing—
"but we should not and do not want to step into the shoes of the fire and rescue authorities as employers"—
yet they have this Bill.
"Rather than be drawn into detailed consideration of options as negotiations develop"—
that is what we are trying to facilitate by our amendment—
"we will set out our requirements openly before negotiations start. It will then he for the two sides to reach agreement within those limits".
I suggest that the Government are bobbing about. They do not really know whether they will specify firm limits and tell the negotiators to confine them in that way. They do not know the circumstances in which they will say, "If you do not reach agreement and say what we want you to say, we shall impose the Bill and the orders".
The more we can put on the face of the Bill ways in which the Government might consult and consult and consult again rather than impose the orders, the better it will he for industrial relations and the Government. However, we shall not convince them tonight so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert "and
(c) should be consulted in accordance with the guidance issued for and advice on "best practice" given to fire authorities in respect of integrated risk management planning,
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this part of the Bill deals with the use of property or facilities and says that the Secretary of State must consult persons who, in his opinion, are,
"likely to be affected … or … represent persons who are, in his opinion, likely to be so affected".
It so happens that the Government have decided that fire authorities must produce integrated risk management plans. Those are referred to in the agreement recently signed between the fire authorities and the FBU. Those plans will include not only the provision of appropriate cover to respond to tire and other emergencies but take into account other factors such as community fire safety, which is the subject to which the provisions relate.
Guidance notes in relation to consultation have also been produced. They are intended for fire authorities—I have a copy—and are extremely comprehensive. As that guidance is available and presumably has complete government approval, there seems no reason why it should not be used in the framework of the Bill. The Secretary of State will be entitled, within the terms of the Bill, to make orders in relation to the use of property or facilities, the area covered by the guidance in respect of integrated risk management planning.
The issue was not raised in Committee, but is fresh. I would therefore welcome the Minister's comments. The amendment is intended to be helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I have had problems—I think that I mentioned them in Grand Committee—about such points. It is perfectly true that the Bill requires, especially in relation to Clause 1(1)(b) orders, a certain degree of consultation. My problem for some time has been that I genuinely do not understand the relationship of the provisions, especially that on consultation with regard to Clause 1(1)(b) orders, with other legislation. I was about to say that that legislation was going through the House, but we have heard tonight that some of it has gone through.
The three relevant pieces of legislation are the Bill, the Local Government Act, and what is about to be the civil contingencies Bill. I do not think it wrong to mention that very important Bill, as your Lordships have set up a special procedure in a committee to consider it. I take it that noble Lords who have shown an interest in this Bill will also know what is being proposed in that Bill. It was from that that we drew many of our suggestions on what might constitute an emergency in regard to Amendment No. 1, which was discussed when we last considered the Bill.

1161
The Local Government Act contains some discussion of the Fire Service, of course, because it repeals the previous provisions in regard to the Secretary of State's powers. As I understand it, it is primarily the relevant Act under which what is at present a consultation draft has been issued. That draft, mentioned by my noble friend, states:
"Circumstances may arise in which the fire authority might deem it appropriate to amend the policies/standards it has set for prevention and/or intervention activities, or the provision/ location of resources",
and so on. It continues:
"You will therefore need to make arrangements to consult those who may be affected by the changes. These issues are likely to be similar in nature to one or more of those listed in Figure 1, and the guidance given there should form the basis for your decisions about the extent of consultations".
There is a direct link with this Bill, because the consultations on similar matters come under Clause 1 in a rather more vague way. The type of consultation required under the risk management plans and the consultation draft is, first, a list of matters that require consultation with:
"Communities, business organisations, and local authorities in the area covered by the appliance",
or by the arrangements concerned, and with "Employee representatives". Those four matters are:
"Alteration in policies and standards set by the fire authority for attendance to specific types of emergency incident; alteration in the standards and/or targets set for preventative activities to achieve improvement in community safety and/or special appliances; removal from service of pumping and/or special appliances"—
and, lastly—
"change in crewing patterns of one or more appliances, e.g. shift crewed to day-crewed, constant crewed to variable crewed etc".
They require that extensive consultation.
There is another type of consultation required that is restricted to employee representatives. It is not about conditions of service directly—perhaps it is so incidentally. Perhaps the Minister will tell us, as he was directly involved in the Local Government Act. They are:
"Relocation from one fire station to another of a special appliance providing cover across part or all of a brigade's area; changes in the number of personnel provided to crew appliances".
This Bill, or some Bill—the Local Government Act does not do it—should mention the relationship between all those consultations and the consultations which are, in a more vague sense, required by the Bill. It is a separate point from those made in previous amendments. It stands by itself. Critics would say that it asks for joined-up government. The amendment asks what the relationship is between the requirements under that Act and the consultation provisions in the Bill. I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend referred to joined-up government. The Government are so well joined up that the Bill is a discrete operation. It is not dependent on the Local Government Act, which has just received Royal Assent. It is not connected with the proposed legislation that will flow from the White
1162
Paper on the reorganisation of the fire services as a whole. It is a Bill that we hope that we do not have to operate.
Given the way that both my noble friends have explained the consultation process, it is easy to see that, in the circumstances in which we know the Bill would be operated, Amendment No. 16 could lead to a situation where it is more difficult for those providing the emergency fire cover at the time to gain prompt access to fire authority assets so that the public can be properly protected.
Therefore, in a way, the case is made, simply because the nature of the consultation that is properly required for drawing up the integrated risk management plan is such that it could—this is why is it not included in the Bill—lead to a situation where we cannot secure prompt access to the firefighting equipment that the services need to fight the fires in the context of the operation of the Bill. I do not mean ordinary situations. It is in the context only of the Bill being in operation.
Amendment No. 16 suggests that those consultations should be conducted in a similar manner to the integrated risk management set-up, which is somewhat different. The guidance that has been issued to fire authorities on that matter rightly includes the list of interested parties that my noble friends have read out. We would expect the fire authorities to consult those bodies.
The integrated risk management plans will be key documents, setting out each fire authority's plans for the standards of emergency cover; local targets; where and when resources should be located et cetera. It is therefore right that the authorities should consult really widely and ensure that all sections of the community—including business, as my noble friend pointed out—have access to the means of influencing the way in which fire and rescue services are delivered in that area. With respect, I must say that that is not what the Bill is about. Therefore, Amendment No. 16, because it would mean that the Secretary of State's ability would be constrained in the circumstances that he would need to operate the Bill, should not be part of the Bill. I ask my noble friend to withdraw it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to clarify what he has just said. First, the integrated risk management consultation provisions clearly and expressly include situations where there may be an emergency. Secondly, the question that arises therefore is whether Clause 1(4) takes account of that width of consultation.
Subsection (4) has not been set out in the debate. It states:
"Before making an order under this section containing a direction about the use or disposal of property or facilities, the Secretary of State must consult such persons who—

(a) are, in his opinion, likely to be affected by the proposed direction, or

(b) represent persons who are, in his opinion, likely to be so affected, as he thinks fit".

1163
In making those consultations, will he take account of the width of consultation required by the integrated risk management provisions or not? If he will, that would be some reassurance.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I have made abundantly clear, the answer is no.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am surprised at my noble friend's response. As my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said—I am holding the consultation document in my hand—it seems to me that the fire authority integrated risk management planning document makes arrangements for emergencies. I would have thought that the reference to the document was to the advantage of everyone concerned. It clearly sets out the people who should be consulted and makes appropriate arrangements for emergencies.
We have attempted not only with this amendment but with Amendment No. 1 to try to deal with the Government's repeated statement that this is simply a Bill dealing with emergency situations and it is hoped that they will never have to use the powers set out in it. Unfortunately, that is not set out in the Bill. The Bill makes no reference to use only in emergencies. Our attempts to write it into the Bill have simply been rejected by the Government. That is very unfortunate. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert—
"(4A) Where the members of the negotiating body inform the Secretary of State that they are in dispute or disagreement relating to a matter on which the Secretary of State submits proposals and that they agree to submit the dispute or disagreement to resolution in a process of conciliation, mediation or arbitration, he shall consult ACAS with a view to establishing such a process with the agreement of the parties.
(4B) Where such a process results in proposals by a mediator or an award by an arbitrator or arbitration body, the Secretary of State shall consult with the members of the negotiating body concerning those proposals or that award before proceeding to make an order."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Grand Committee we sought at considerable length and detail to ascertain the Government's attitude to third-party dispute resolution; that is, conciliation, mediation or arbitration which would normally be provided by ACAS.
We are therefore proposing three amendments. A previous one dealt with an agreement reached between the parties which the Government might want to set aside, whether it was the result of third-party dispute resolution or not. We have two more amendments which are more directly related to the question of third-party dispute resolution. Amendment No. 17 relates to a situation in which there is no agreement between the parties but the parties would like to try third-party dispute resolution. Amendment No. 18
1164
relates to a situation in which there is no agreement but the parties are not agitating for third-party dispute resolution.
It is fair to say that on several occasions the Minister has told us that he is not against third-party dispute resolution. In fact, he said he thought it was a good idea—that is, conciliation, mediation and also arbitration. He stressed to us. as reported at col. GC 283 on 3rd July, the degree to which in this service there are already proposals specifying ways of having third-party dispute resolution. Therefore, how can anyone say that this was a service in which third-party dispute resolution was an alien factor? He said:
"The arrangements in place between the Fire Brigades Union and the employers already cover the circumstances of arbitration—as a last resort. I accept. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the constitution of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades provide that if the council fails to reach agreement on any matter contained in paragraph 8 of the constitution—that is, matters relating to conditions of service—the matter will be automatically referred to ACAS"—
automatically, ex parte. He continued:
"If the conciliation fails to resolve the dispute, either side of the NJC can refer the matter to ACAS for arbitration and the other side of the NJC is required to participate. So the mechanism already exists".
In other words, he sought to argue that various alternative ways of introducing arbitration were not required.
The Minister continued:
"Given—this has to be clearly stated: I think it is accepted; no one disagrees with it, I hope—that the agreement reached on 13th June was signed by both sides of the national joint council, it follows, therefore, that the arbitration procedures of the national joint council constitution can be applied to it if the circumstances require as it progresses through the process".—[Official Report, 3/7/03; col. GC 283.]
That is so, but only if the Secretary of State agrees and only if the arbitration, in particular—that is why we have tabled the amendment—is required as a way of gaining an independent assessment of the solution that the Secretary of State wishes to impose by law.
Perhaps I may take noble Lords back to the dispute which was the genesis of the Bill. I believe it is admitted—it was certainly reported widely in the press—that there were two separate occasions when the parties had either agreed or were about to agree and the Secretary of State intervened. He said that it was no good to reach such an agreement because the Government would not accept it.
Although the Minister told me in Grand Committee that the dispute was not an emergency, nevertheless, if it had turned into an emergency, the Secretary of State would have imposed his own solution at that point because he did not have the Bill then. We are saying that, if he does issue his proposals, there should be some kind of independent access to a verdict which the parties, the newspapers and the public can consider.
Therefore, we say in proposed new subsection (4B):
"Where such a process results in proposals by a mediator or an award by an arbitrator"—

1165
that is, whatever the parties are able to agree—
"… the Secretary of State shall consult with the members of the negotiating body concerning those proposals or that award before proceeding to make an order".
Therefore, the parties do not have that already as a way of appealing against an order. We are not saying that if they decide to come to the Secretary of State and say, "We would like to have what is essentially an independent assessment of your solution", that that immediately becomes a binding arbitration on the parties. We are saying that that was never available to the parties in the previous dispute.
If the Government are to be. in effect, the ghost at the bargaining table, outside the process and telling the employers what they can agree, and, subsequently, if the employers reach an agreement which the Government dislike and do not want and they impose their decision upon the parties, then there should at least, in the interest of equity, be some kind of independent assessment of the validity and fairness of what is about to be imposed by law. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend, who quoted what I said in Committee, because what I am about to say is word for word what I said then, so he will hear it for the second time. I believe the reasons are wholly justified because, frankly, we cannot accept Amendment No. 17.
There is a set of amendments, some of which we shall come to shortly, which would make it difficult for the Secretary of State to exercise the powers in the Bill which. I repeat, the elected House, although not having debated all the details, has agreed in principle he should have.
A number of noble Lords and, indeed, some Members of the other place, have repeatedly called for the Bill to provide for arbitration between the parties. We have made it clear that in the Government's view—I keep putting a caveat on this—in circumstances where the Bill is in operation and where it is necessary to draw a line under any future dispute, it is not appropriate to include such provisions in the Bill. We have said that for a number of reasons.
We believe that the democratically elected Secretary of State with overall responsibility for the fire service—the Deputy Prime Minister—is the appropriate person to settle the dispute if the two parties cannot agree. That is in the context of the Bill where he has to impose a solution; I accept that.
The major causes of disagreement in the recent dispute have been on matters which are not capable of being arbitrated; for example, how the service should move from nationally prescribed standards of fire cover to a locally determined risk-based approach to fire cover.
It is difficult to see how even the best independent arbitrator could be better placed to make informed judgments than those directly involved in managing the service, or those in Government with policy responsibility for it.
1166
I repeat that the Bill requires the Secretary of State to consult a negotiating body on his proposal for when he will fix or modify; that is, impose conditions of service. That means that he has to take into account their views before making his final decision. He will be required to do that otherwise he would be up before my noble and learned friends.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I will not go into the question of when that could be raised in court. I think that that is highly speculative. What I want to put to my noble friend—I am grateful to him for allowing me to do so—is that the Government have accepted (we are not concerned with the clause at present but the Bill is joined up) a new clause in the Bill which refers to the June 2003 agreement between the Fire Brigades Union and the local authority fire service employers, and accepted a statement, for what it is worth, that the Act does not affect the possibility of parties agreeing on a reference to mediation. conciliation or arbitration.
That shows an intent not to effect that. The disputes procedure already agreed between the same two parties under the grey book applies quite clearly and expressly to the 2003 agreement. If the parties do that, is it so unreasonable to ask the Secretary of State, as our amendment seeks, that when they have done that and received some kind of answer, which might solve everything—I do not know what sort of dispute is envisaged; the Minister should spell out just what sort of dispute he envisages, at least in general terms—to say, "Surely, Secretary of State, before you impose an order. you should consult the members of the negotiating body who have used that procedure, which is already expressly envisaged in Clause 2 of the Bill"?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend asked a question: yes. it would be unreasonable in the circumstances in which the Bill will operate, as I have said. This is where I start to repeat myself, for which I apologise but I must put this on the record.
At the end of the day, unusual circumstances will be involved. I repeat that we do not wish to operate the Bill—I have said that repeatedly so that my comments will not be taken out of context at any time in the future—and things are going well, to be best of my knowledge, in terms of the recent resolution to the fire services dispute. The various timetables have been agreed. This is only, as I said, a longstop. I am not denying that the provision is draconian. But the Secretary of State must be in a position to be able to draw a line under a dispute and then not be subject to challenge, but to do it in accordance with the power given to him by Parliament.
However, as I said in Grand Committee, there is another reason why the Bill does not need to provide for arbitration. That is because the arrangements already in place between the Fire Brigades Union and the employers already cover this. As my noble friend has read out, paragraphs 13 and 14 of the constitution

1167
of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades provide that if the council fails to reach agreement on any matter contained in paragraph 8 of the constitution—that is, matters relating to conditions of service—that matter will automatically be referred to ACAS for conciliation. If conciliation fails to resolve the dispute, either side of the NJC can refer the matter to ACAS for arbitration, and the other side of the NJC is required to participate.
So the mechanism already exists. As I have said before, given that the agreement reached on 13th June was signed by both sides of the National Joint Council, it follows that the arbitration procedures of the NJC constitution can be applied.
I hope that what I have just said will reassure my noble friends on Amendment No. 17. I should make it clear that in the event of the parties agreeing to seek arbitration, it would be extremely unlikely that the Secretary of State would want to exercise his powers to fix or modify conditions of service, if he considered that there was a realistic prospect that the two parties could, by seeking arbitration, resolve their differences. But it would, in theory, remain open to the Secretary of State to exercise his power at any time.
I hope that I have been able to give some clarification on the options available to the two sides—the employers and the employees—in the event of a further dispute, or a disagreement, on the interpretation of the current agreement. That is what it is about. As a result, I respectfully request my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to make two points. My second point is about how I do not think the Government have yet grasped what we are saying. On the first point—I say very gently; and I am not trying to be difficult—the Minister in this debate and in Grand Committee mentioned on several occasions the fact that we should do something—and I am not quite clear what it is we should do—because something has happened in another place. He says that in the other place, which is democratically elected, a decision has been taken and that in some vague way that especially should influence what we do.
I thought I understood what that meant we should do. There are conventions in this House—there are practically laws—about the powers of this House in relation to the other place. They apply to every Bill that is placed into this House. I do not know why it is being stressed especially, as though there was something additional about this Bill. Unless, of course, the Minister is arguing that our amendments are wrecking amendments; that we are trying in some way to wreck the Bill; and that we are introducing all kinds of delaying tactics—filibustering and so on—which are not done in other parts of the House on other Bills: something particularly heinous is being done.
1168
That is not the case. It is not our opinion that that is what we are doing. As I said in Grand Committee, and I shall say it again, the Government have everything but the argument. I do not know why they must have the argument as well. They have got the power; they have got the numbers; and they will get their Bill. No one is trying to frustrate or blow up anything. All they cannot win is the argument. I am sorry about that, but that is the way it is.
I wish to make a point about the amendment that has not been taken on board by the Minister; this is, it would not hold up or frustrate a decision on the part of the Secretary of State. That applies to the next amendment, which I shall move much more briefly, because it deals with the same matter. This amendment would not stop the decision. All that it is saying is that, as a matter of policy, the Minister ought to encourage the use of third party dispute resolution. It is no good reciting what exists already because the Minister is not saying that that applies to an order.
The Minister said that when an order was decided, it comes down instantaneously: "Boom", it goes into the contract. There is no arbitration. After the consultation process, the Secretary of State says" "I am now going to impose an order which is legally binding on all employers"—we will not debate what is legally binding because we have done so previously. But that is an order. He is not saying that the employer can then go to arbitration. All the existing facilities created before this Bill apply to the circumstances when this Bill does not apply.
Arbitration is the wrong word. We are too conventional. We are saying that, in this country—in the absence of incomes policy, I would say, but I will leave that aside—a pretence is growing, quite naturally, that employers and workers in the public sector negotiate like they used to do, as I quoted from the White Paper, as though the Government are stopping outside. They are not. They are, what I called in Committee the,
"ghost at the bargaining table".—[Official Report, 3/7/03; col. GC 290.]
The Government are deciding what the employers can say. I do not complain about that: those are the facts of life.
However, that means that workers are engaged in industrial action—as the postmen nearly did the other day; and I am very glad that they did not—and there is no appeal against the decisions of the Government. The Government are deciding and nobody even knows what arguments they are using at the bargaining table.
In my experience, employers, both government and private sector, always consistently get one thing wrong—they exaggerate the benefits that will come from their novel proposals. I have said this before. Nobody believes me, but, as we will find out, nothing will be saved by the proposals and everything will be spent by this new method. It always is. There cannot be self-financing productivity deals in the public sector because one cannot charge at the point of distribution. It always costs more money than is saved. It is bound to. However, governments and private sectors and

1169
people half-way in and half-way out always believe that we are going to save vast sums with more intelligent ways of working. They do not save very much, but that, on the whole, is what independent assessment uncovers. I am not talking about arbitration.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, are we not getting a little way away from the amendment on the general policy of government?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I have probably gone on far too long, but the Government are listening, if only for two minutes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at one minute before seven o'clock to Monday 6th October at half-past two o'clock, except for judicial business.

Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill [H.L.]
Bill returned earlier from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.
  Opposition Parties: Financial Assistance
  Opposition Parties: Financial Assistance
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: Appointments
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: Appointments
  Palace of Westminster: Replacement Stone
  Palace of Westminster: Replacement Stone
  Iraq: Prisoners Captured by British Forces
  Iraq: Prisoners Captured by British Forces
  Gulf War Immunisations: Thiomersal
  Gulf War Immunisations: Thiomersal
  Iraq: Casualties of Bombing
  Iraq: Casualties of Bombing
  Veterans
  Veterans
  Night Military Low Flying
  Night Military Low Flying
  Iraq: WMD Investigations
  Iraq: WMD Investigations
  Political Asylum
  Political Asylum
  Common Agricultural Policy: Export Subsidies
  Common Agricultural Policy: Export Subsidies
  Brown Rot Eradication Campaign
  Brown Rot Eradication Campaign
  BBC: Accountability
  BBC: Accountability
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  NHS Dentistry
  NHS Dentistry
  NHS: Staff
  NHS: Staff
  National Health Service (Charges for Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989
  National Health Service (Charges for Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989
  Smallpox: Vaccinated Medical Staff
  Smallpox: Vaccinated Medical Staff
  Carers: Assessments
  Carers: Assessments
  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
  NHS: Mixed-Sex Wards
  NHS: Mixed-Sex Wards
  NHS: Private Patient Activity
  NHS: Private Patient Activity