Sitting of 22 April 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
  Lords Reason for disagreeing to one of the Commons amendments, considered
  Resolved,
  That the Commons do not insist on their Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.—[Siobhain McDonagh]

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Rights of Way (Mechanically Propelled Vehicles)
    John Mann: What conclusions she has drawn from the consultation on the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way. [167002]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): First, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had to go to Luxembourg for a special Agriculture Council meeting, which is why she is not able to be with us this morning. I am pleased to say that there has been a successful outcome, and I have placed copies of her press statement in the Vote Office for the convenience of Members.
    Secondly, it might be convenient for Members if I draw attention to the written statement confirming the three area arrangements for the single farm payment made by my right hon. Friend this morning.
    In response to our consultation on the use of mechanised vehicles on rights of way, we received over 15,000 letters and e-mails, which are being analysed. Views on the main issues are strong but divided. I shall do all that I can to build a consensus on the way forward, but with such strength of opinion it is clear that leadership and action are required from the Government.
    John Mann: I am all in favour of strong leadership and action from the Government. A significant number of Members have articulated their views on an early-day motion that I tabled. In the consultation, will the Minister take good note of the fact that many of those
    420
    who are complaining are doing so about something on which the Government are not consulting? The issue is whether there is unrestricted, unbridled new access to new rights of way, rather than the placing of restrictions on people's perfectly rational and reasonable pastimes. In considering that, will the Minister—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is rather a long question. Perhaps this is an Adjournment debate subject.
    Alun Michael: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. Many pieces of disinformation have been put around about the consultation. Issues such as whether use by horses 200 years ago should lead to the use of particular tracks by mechanised vehicles are serious, and unnecessary fears have been caused by the sort of disinformation to which my hon. Friend refers. We shall certainly consider all the experience and all the comments that have come in, in trying to design a way forward that is sensible, protects rights of way and protects the interests of all.
    Mr. Robert Key: Does the Minister agree that no one should accuse either him or those of us who have made representations on behalf of our constituents of acting with haste or being unreasonable? I spent an afternoon with the Southern Counties Off Road club and had a two-hour meeting with the Wiltshire Trail Riders Fellowship, as well as consulting every parish council, before making my representations to the Minister. My conclusion that it is unreasonable to carry on as we are is widely shared.
    Alun Michael: I am happy to respond positively to what the hon. Gentleman says. I met representatives of the users of mechanised vehicles a couple of weeks ago after the end of the consultation, as I promised that I would, and I urged them to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. There are many responsible users who do not want to go somewhere that would cause damage, or to damage the interests of others, but there are others who take a different attitude. It is important to engage responsible users, rather than their responding to the sort of disinformation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) referred a few moments ago.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The infamous Grimsell lane is in my constituency, and the decision made in that case seems to have extended the legal loopholes that are described in the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Today, I have received a letter from a constituent who refers to eight lanes in the area that are now being extensively used by motorcycles that did not use them in the past. There is also a perverse decision in connection with bridleway 54 at Walton, which I have put in front of my right hon. Friend for his response. We need a situation in which the danger, noise and rutting that has been created by some misuse in the area is controlled.
    Alun Michael: I am happy to look at individual examples, and I know that my hon. Friend has taken a considerable interest in the topic over a period of time. It is worth saying that traffic restriction orders can be used.

    421
    For example, in places such as the Ridgeway where those have not been used in the past, there is now co-operation between local authorities to make use of seasonal restriction orders. We need to get the right response for any particular lane or right of way. I am very pleased that so many Members are engaged in wanting to achieve the right way forward.

    Dairy Farming
    Mr. Adrian Flook: If she will make a statement on the effect of single farm payments on dairy farmers. [167004]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The Government took the decision to include dairy payments in the single farm payment from 2005. As a result of earlier reforms, the dairy sector was running behind those covered in the 2003 reform, and this has made the position more complicated. There will be a net reduction in the support for dairy. Within that, some of the more intensive dairy farmers will receive less than they currently do, and some of the smaller, less intensive farmers will receive more. The eight-year transitional period should give time for dairy and other sectors to adjust.
    Mr. Flook: Under the single farm payment, dairy farmers in Somerset who currently get £350 per hectare will receive only £220. Given that they get only 17p per litre for milk that costs them 20p per litre to produce, does the Minister agree that that spells disaster for Somerset's dairy farmers?
    Mr. Bradshaw: No, I do not. The amount that dairy farmers currently receive depends, of course, on their stock densities. It is not just the flat rate payment that will bring the dairy industry closer to the market, thereby helping it to become more profitable and market oriented, rather than subsidy oriented; the measures that we have introduced—not least the one announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the adjustments to the areas will prove helpful to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: A dairy farmer in my constituency whom I met last week farms an area of land 55 per cent. of which is categorised as disadvantaged, yet he has a herd of 170 cows and a thriving business. However, when the new payments are applied he may well receive far less than that received by farmers six miles away, who farm good land. It seems perverse that a man who has built up a sustainable business should lose out because his farm happens to be situated on what is called disadvantaged land. Will my hon. Friend look seriously at how we can help such farmers, and consider an appeals procedure?
    Mr. Bradshaw: That is exactly why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a change in the boundaries as originally proposed in February. When my hon. Friend studies them, he will realise that they will help the very dairy farmer he mentions.
    Mr. David Cameron: During a recent meeting in Witney, the National Farmers Union
    422
    pointed out to me that because of the different regimes that will exist in Scotland, Wales and England, Scottish and Welsh dairy farmers could buy a market in milk quota. Does the Minister share the NFU's concern that that could lead to an even greater reduction in dairy production in England, and if so, what does he propose to do about it?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I certainly accept that such a thing is possible. It is the result of devolution, and of Scotland and Wales having taken different decisions on the implementation of common agricultural policy reform—but we still believe that our decision to implement it on a flat rate basis is the right one for England. We are aware of quota moving over the border, but to judge by the reports we have received so far, that will not be a serious problem.
    David Taylor: Has the Secretary of State responded to the letter of 19 March from the Dairy Industry Association Ltd. on this topic? It points out the paramount need for dairy farmers to restructure their businesses in order to survive in the news commercial environment created by a reduction in support, and it fears that—even in the light of today's announcement on the new areas—sub-moorland farmers in severely disadvantaged areas will struggle to survive in their traditional way.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am afraid that I cannot say whether the Secretary of State has yet to respond to that letter, but in today's announcement she certainly took on board the concerns expressed by the dairy industry. Indeed, the changes announced today were supported by the dairy industry and by virtually all sectors of the agriculture industry. However, that is not all that the Government are doing to help the industry. As my hon. Friend probably knows, my noble Friend who speaks for the Government in the other place chairs the dairy supply chain forum, which is working with the dairy industry to try to do exactly what my hon. Friend wants: to make sure that the industry has a healthy and secure future, but one that is market oriented, not subsidy oriented.
    Andrew George: Is the Minister prepared to admit that because his Department has treated the House as a notice board rather than a debating Chamber, crucial issues of scrutiny have not been completed? Substantial issues affecting dairy farmers, tenant farmers and others have been unresolved, so the Government have had to back pedal and make today's statement—a written statement about severely disadvantaged areas.
    In a written answer of 17 March, Hansard column 279, the Minister's colleague said that all the assessments that I had asked the Government to publish would be produced in a document "shortly", but it is now 10 weeks since that answer. Does the Minister admit that those assessments and the statement were made without any proper assessment at all?
    Mr. Bradshaw: No, I do not, and it sounds as though the hon. Gentleman, who is usually more reasonable in these matters, is accusing the Government of having listened to the concerns of the industry—which is

    423
    exactly what we have done. It would be fair to say that many people within the industry had not expected the Government to adopt a flat rate payment for the implementation of CAP reform and were unready to consider the consequences of such an implementation. It was precisely after the announcement in February that concerns were raised by the industry. We have taken them into account and made an announcement to Parliament at the earliest opportunity—today.

    Horse Passports
    Mr. Roger Gale: What representations she has received on horse passports. [167005]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): The Government have received a range of representations about horse passports. Some have been over-simplistic, opposing horse passports altogether—though they are a legal requirement—and others, particularly among the horse industry, have been constructive and have endorsed our approach of working with the industry to seize the opportunity to create a comprehensive horse database.
    Mr. Gale: The Minister is aware that horses and ponies are kept in great swathes of the UK where the veterinary and other infrastructure is insufficient to satisfy the demands of the new bureaucracy. There are growing concerns on the one hand about the export of live equines for slaughter, and on the other about the imposition of a bureaucracy whose demands people have no reasonable way of meeting.
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman mixes two issues, the first of which is horse passports. Introducing the passport system and putting in place the necessary work to ensure that all horses have passports is a major issue. We are aware of that and we are talking to the industry about how best to ease the pressure. The second issue is the export of live animals for slaughter, which we have no intention of encouraging. The Under-Secretary and I have worked hard with the industry and animal welfare organisations, and Britain is taking a lead in ensuring, first, that we do not create a business in live horse exports and, secondly, that the welfare of animals in transport is protected and improved.
    Richard Ottaway: There is a link between the two issues of live exports and passports because a continental abattoir will not accept horses without a passport. The Minister must realise that. A million horse owners are going to have to pay up to £50 to have a compulsory ID card, all to pay for a huge DEFRA database that will be a bureaucratic nightmare. Does the Minister accept that the best way to protect our horses is to withdraw his regulations, stand up to the EU and be the Minister for the horse, not for Brussels?
    Alun Michael: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new duties. I hope that when he has played himself in by listening to the industry and understanding the issues, we can have more intelligent questions. We have no intention of creating what he described as a huge
    424
    DEFRA database. Instead of leading a bureaucratic approach to the implementation of any such database, we are working with the industry and it will be industry-owned. In the fullness of time, I hope that Conservative Members will realise that they are losing their audience in the horse industry, whose people are increasingly recognising that it is this side of the House that is interested in the future of the horse and the industry, and that the Conservatives are doing them no favours.

    Cider Orchards
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: What representations she has received on the exclusion of cider orchards from the proposed area payments under the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. [167006]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): This matter was the subject of an Adjournment debate on Tuesday, led by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Some commentators feared that our orchards would be grubbed up in order to qualify for the new single payment. As such applications would qualify only for the new flat rate element, the financial benefits would be small, and I therefore believe the fears to be misplaced. We are working with the industry to make sure that traditional orchards and biodiversity are not damaged by the new arrangements.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is the Minister aware that Somerset's cider orchards are a vital asset, for the cider that they produce, for their appearance—especially at this time of year—and because they provide a habitat for many interesting species of insects, birds and so on? Those orchards miss out on the new area payments unless they are grubbed up and returned to agricultural use. Why is that? Contrary to what the Minister just said, there is a clear economic incentive to take the trees away and return the land to ordinary agricultural use. Why is he persisting in a scheme that is unfair to apple growers, and also a clear threat to the diversity and beauty of our environment? That is something about which his Department ought to be more concerned.
    Alun Michael: There seems to be a clear trend today—Conservative Members who are not up to speed on the issues about which they ask questions. I recommend that the right hon. Gentleman read the interesting exchanges in the Adjournment debate held only two days ago. He made no distinction between commercial cider orchards and more traditional orchards, and he did not refer to stewardship, which provides more financial support to many traditional orchards than would be available through the flat rate element in the new single payment. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman gets to grip with the facts.
    Hugh Robertson: In common with other growers, cider apple producers are heavily dependent on legal labour, provided under the student agricultural workers scheme, to harvest their crops. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the students who come from Romania and Bulgaria

    425
    every year will arrive in time to harvest summer fruit in May and June, and that they do not get caught up in immigration chaos?
    Alun Michael: I am not going to stray into areas that are appropriate for the Home Office and other Departments, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are fully conscious of the need for seasonal workers to carry out the sort of activity that he describes. We will respond to a private Member's Bill shortly, but we want to encourage legal seasonal working and to discourage those who operate illegally. In that context, we understand the importance of the students and those who come through the avenues that the hon. Gentleman describes.

    Farm Subsidies
    Matthew Green: What discussions she has had on her proposals for single farm payments in respect of farmers in severely disadvantaged areas. [167007]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had discussions with, and received representations from, a wide range of interests on this subject. As a result, and as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality noted earlier, she made a written statement to the House this morning. It changes the boundaries for the single farm payment from two regions—severely disadvantaged areas and non-SDA—to moorland within SDAs, the rest of SDAs, and non-SDA. That change has the support of all the main interested organisations, including the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association, the National Beef Association, the National Sheep Association, the Tenant Farmers Association, the dairy producers, and organisations such as the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and the Association of National Park Authorities.
    Matthew Green: For once, I want to congratulate the Government on listening to farming organisations. I am grateful that they have taken a rational and sensible decision in this matter. I also congratulate the farming organisations that have managed to get together to speak with one voice for the industry. In particular, the NFU in my area did a wonderful job in keeping SDA farmers closely informed and aware of developments.
    I turn the Minister's attention to the final paragraph of the Secretary of State's written statement. It states:
    "I have therefore asked my officials to consider how the next round of rural development programming (from 2007 onwards) can better reflect the needs of upland communities".
    That is potentially more—
    Hon. Members: Get on with it.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not going to allow long supplementary questions.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be referring to the concerns of some moorland farmers who may lose out as a result of the adjustment made today. He is absolutely right to draw attention to that, and to the Government's very serious response to those problems. He is right that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has outlined a number of ways in which the Government will address some of the problems that poorer hill farmers might face in due course.
    Paddy Tipping: I very much welcome the Secretary of State's announcement this morning and the fact that she has listened to the consensus view of the farming industry. However, there is another consensus: the whole sector wants those payments to be made in 2005. Many of us have real concerns about the Rural Payments Agency, which is undergoing a big programme of change at present. Is the Minister confident that payments will be made on time next year?
    Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is a challenging time scale, but we are confident that we can meet it and every effort will be made to ensure that we do so.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Why will farmers in Parwich in my constituency be paid at two different levels?
    Mr. Bradshaw: That is the inevitable consequence of having area-based payments and three different regions. If the hon. Gentleman has a better idea, perhaps he would let us have it.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Although we welcome the announcement today, have not the four weeks that the Government have spent considering the industry's proposal further reduced the time available to set up the new arrangements" I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). There is real concern that the Rural Payments Agency will be unable to cope. Does the Minister understand that those concerns have been heightened by the delays this year, which have meant that some IACS—integrated administration and control scheme—forms have only just arrived, giving farmers only three weeks to complete and submit them in order to meet the deadline?
    Mr. Bradshaw: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), we are confident that the payments will be made in time. Over the next two weeks. the Government will write to every farmer and farming business in the country to explain how we have decided to implement CAP reform. The payments will be made, starting next year, as the Government proposed.

    Sewage Tanks (Odour Pollution)
    Dr. Vincent Cable: When she proposes to issue guidance on the environmental standards required of water companies in respect of odour pollution from sewage tanks. [167008]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): We plan to consult on a code of practice on odour from sewage treatment plants this summer, and to publish it by the end of the year.
    Dr. Cable: I thank the Minister for that reply. Following the useful meeting between his colleague, Lord Whitty, and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), myself and our constituents, and given the legal ruling that water companies will be prosecuted for odour emission, does the Minister agree that it is urgent that those companies are set a timetable for converting their sewage plants to prevent odour emission, along the lines of modern plants such as those in Reading?
    Mr. Morley: We recognise that in certain parts of the country there have been long-standing problems with sewage treatment plants and the hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of my Department to one of them. He is right that there is legislation, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. to take action against odour nuisance. The idea behind the code of practice is to ensure that all sewage treatment companies have a list of measures that can be taken to mitigate the problem—of course, if they do not, they run the risk of prosecution. In some cases, that may mean capital investment, but not in others; that is a matter for the companies to put into their business plans and to put to the regulator.
    Mr. Mark Francois: May I encourage the Minister to crack on with this as soon as possible? The issue has caused considerable concern in my constituency, especially around the Stambridge sewage works, operated by Anglian Water Services Ltd., where there has been much controversy between local residents and the company. To be fair, Anglian Water has tried to improve the situation, but the sooner clear guidance is issued, the better it will be for everybody.
    Mr. Morley: I can reassure the hon Gentleman that it is our intention to issue guidance as soon as possible this summer. I am sure that it will help with some of the problems. To be fair to many sewage treatment companies, they recognise the need to address particular localised problems.

    Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Mr. Simon Burns: If she will make a statement on the recently released figures on carbon dioxide emissions. [167009]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Carbon dioxide emissions for 2003 are provisionally estimated at about 152.5 million tonnes of carbon, about 7 per cent. lower than in 1990. Emissions increased by 1.5 per cent. between 2002 and 2003. The
    428
    increase was due largely to the greater use of coal for electricity generation and a decrease in net imports of electricity from the continent.
    Mr. Burns: I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply, although he has not given the full picture. Does he accept that in two of the last three years emissions have increased and are now only 7 per cent. below 1990 levels? Bearing in mind that the Government signed up to the Kyoto commitment of a 12.5 per cent. reduction and that they even went beyond that, off their own bat, to set a 20 per cent. reduction by 2010, do they not fear that defeat is staring them in the face?
    Mr. Morley: No, I do not. The hon. Gentleman has mixed up two figures. The Kyoto agreement is on greenhouses gasses, but he is talking about CO2. The 2003 figures on greenhouse gases show that we were 14 per cent. below the 1990 level. The Kyoto target is 12.5 per cent. We are not complacent about the stabilisation on CO2, but our figures are one of the best results of any country, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that on 20 May there will be a demonstration in Parliament of a hydrogen-powered car. It will be a few years before the technology is realisable, but in the meantime will he encourage Departments to look carefully at the Environment Agency research that shows that a British-built Vauxhall powered by LPG is among the cleanest vehicles on the road? Should not the Government take a lead by buying such vehicles?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is aware that the Government car fleet has a number of LPG-powered vehicles, which offer certain advantages. Indeed, their great strength is their effect on air quality. To reduce greenhouse gases we must look at new technologies, including hydrogen fuel cells and clean technologies. We need international co-operation, which is why we have been talking to Japan and, on research and development, to the United States. We recently set up REEEP—the renewable energy and energy efficiency partnership—at the instigation of the UK, although the secretariat is now based in Austria. The idea is to bring together best practice, new technologies and ideas on an international basis so that we can share them and establish the use of new technologies, along with caps on greenhouse emissions, to reduce CO2 and greenhouse gases generally.
    Norman Baker: Does the Minister accept that he has no chance of meeting his CO2 emission reduction targets unless the Government get a grip on the transport sector, which is in free fall? We now have the highest level of carbon dioxide emissions from road transport since 1970; there is a projected 25 per cent. increase in road traffic between now and 2010, according to the Department for Transport; and there is a projected doubling of emissions from aircraft between 1990 and 2010. What is the Government's policy on demand management of transport, or is it simply hand wringing?
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman's view is too negative. I do not underestimate the challenge posed by

    429
    the growth in car ownership and use and, indeed, the growth in air transport. We must address those serious issues and we must tackle air transport internationally. I am optimistic that we can make progress in the European Union on carbon trading by bringing air transport within the EU emissions trading scheme, and we will press the Commission for such an inclusion. As for road transport, we need continued investment in public transport, the policy on which has been outlined in the transport White Paper. Cars are becoming cleaner, emissions are going down and CO2 has fallen in the past few years. I repeat that I do not want to be complacent and we need to make further progress, particularly on CO2. There are various ways of doing so—there is not a single solution—and we must explore all the options.
    Ms Joan Walley: It is clear that the Government are doing an enormous amount, particularly as they have chosen global warming as the theme for their presidency of the G8 next year. In the light of a report issued today by the Office of Science and Technology on the extent of flooding problems and their effects on our Victorian sewerage system, it is not time that my hon. Friend had urgent talks with the Environment Agency and environmental health officers to see what investment needs to be made now to deal with the effects of global warming?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have been talking about progress on the reduction of greenhouse gases, and she has demonstrated that global warming has consequences. The foresight report on flooding, which was launched today by Professor Sir David King, the chief scientist, looks at a number of scenarios linked to different rates of economic growth. It examines enormous implications such as rising sea levels, river flooding and sewerage flooding after downpours. There are cost implications, so we have increased spending on coastal defence to £500 million a year and in the past three years we have funded 385 different coast and river protection schemes. It is likely that there will be implications for further spending as a result of such reports. The report demonstrates that there is no cost-free option for dealing with climate change. To try to ignore the consequences of climate change would have enormous consequences for our economy and our country, and internationally. That is the message that we must get across.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister share our disappointment that carbon dioxide emissions have increased, not decreased? In the transport sector since 1990, they have increased by as much as 4.5 per cent.—before the Government embark on their airport expansion plan. Why have the Government decided to exclude aviation from their emissions trading plan? Why do they now accept that the errors in their national allocation plan were so grave that they have had to delay it? Do they also share the deep concerns expressed by the Sustainable Development Commission that they are not on course to meet their own reduction targets by 2010?
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways. When we debated the national allocation plan, she was
    430
    at pains to point out the worries about the effects on industry. Now she criticises us for the progress that we are making on reducing CO2, emissions. We must be consistent, because these are serious issues. The reason why the national allocation plan has been delayed, which is true, is that it was a draft plan and we are trying to take into account the concerns of industry. We are trying to get our modelling right. We are determined not just to meet our Kyoto target, which we have met, but to go beyond that and achieve our commitment to a 20 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gases by 2010 and ultimately 60 per cent. by 2050. That is setting the pace globally and internationally, which is important for our country. I am not complacent about the challenges that that brings or the measures that we must take. I have already said that we must make a start on aviation by bringing it into EU emissions trading and controls, because the current exemption cannot go on.
    Mr. Michael Jack: Following the recent debate in the House on biodiesel after the Select Committee's report, the Minister will be aware of the contribution that that fuel can make to carbon dioxide reduction. He will also be aware that a cost-free way of trying to encourage a UK biodiesel industry was proposed in that debate and in the Energy Bill debate in another place. Whet do the Government intend to do to get a UK oil seed rape-based biodiesel industry off the ground?
    Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman knows that, apart from the 20p per litre subsidy on biofuels, there is a range of other subsidies, such as that for growing biofuels on set-aside land under the common agricultural policy regime. I agree that there is a role for biofuels, both bioethanol and biodiesel. We are reviewing the effects that the measures have had. They have certainly had a great effect on the reuse of vegetable oils and their conversion into biodiesel. That is helpful, and I should like to see it developed further. We shall keep the matter under review.

    Hunting
    Shona McIsaac: What recent progress has been made in relation to a ban on hunting with dogs. [167010]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): A clear commitment has been given to the House that the issue of hunting with dogs will be dealt with during the life of this Parliament.
    Shona McIsaac: As this democratically elected House has expressed its will on the matter on a number of occasions, does my right hon. Friend agree that we can conclude the matter swiftly and that we could deal with all stages of a reintroduced Bill in one sitting day?
    Alun Michael: I agree that the views of the House have been made clear. She knows as well as I do how announcements are made about how the future business of the House will be dealt with. I hear what she says. The commitment to which I referred was made at the time of

    431
    the Queen's Speech and reinforced as recently as 7 January. I hope that that gives her sufficient confidence about the way in which we will deal with the issue.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In view of what the Minister has just said, could he predict when this Parliament might end?
    Alun Michael: I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider how the business of this House is dealt with. I am sure that he has sufficient knowledge to make predictions of his own.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister accept that, when he says, "in this Parliament", the next Session of Parliament could be a relatively short one? There are fewer than 20 parliamentary weeks in this Session. For the life of me, I cannot understand why, if a big conversation is launched in the Labour party, and in almost every single discussion the banning of fox hunting in this Session of Parliament rears its head, the matter is not being dealt with. Get on with it. The Prime Minister dealt with the European problem the other day; let us settle this one as well.
    Alun Michael: In some of the big conversations in which I have taken part in rural areas, fox hunting has not come up as a major issue. People are concerned about big issues to do with employment, education, jobs and the economy. Nevertheless, this is an important issue that needs to be dealt with. That is why an assurance has been given that it will be dealt with in this Parliament. I assure my hon. Friend that the question of how long remains in this Parliament has been fully considered.
    David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there would be bitter disappointment among the large majority of Labour Members and the majority of people in the country if, in this Parliament—the second with a strong Labour majority in the House of Commons—there is no ban on this barbaric sport? Is it not time for this Government to have the courage to say to the House of Lords, "We will not accept your veto; the elected Chamber will decide", and to make sure in this Parliament, before the general election, that there is a ban, which I hope the Tories will challenge in the general election?
    Alun Michael: I am indeed aware of the passion that this issue raises and the views of my hon. Friend and many colleagues. That is why a commitment has been made that the issue will indeed be dealt with during the life of this Parliament. I suggest that a measured view should be taken of this issue. It needs to be dealt with and people have passionate views about it, and that is why it will be dealt with in the course of this Parliament.

    Fishing Licences
    Mr. David Amess: How many registered fishing licences have been revoked since 2001; and if she will make a statement. [167011]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): None. If for any reason a licence becomes invalid, the holder of the licence will usually retain an entitlement to apply for a further licence, which must be made within three years of the entitlement first arising.
    Mr. Amess: I believe that the Minister recognises how important the fishing and cockling industry is to my constituents in Leigh-on-Sea in Essex. I think that he also realises that local families feel under increasing pressure in terms of the catch that they can take as a result of changes from Europe. Will he agree to meet a small delegation of those concerned to discuss changes in the licensing and registration of vessels?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I would be happy to receive a delegation. He will be aware that the cockling and shellfish industry in this country is doing extremely well at the moment. Recent figures show that incomes have doubled. As he knows, problems with North sea cod stocks may have affected some of his local fishermen, but I shall be happy to receive a delegation if he wants to bring one.

    GM Crops
    Joan Ruddock: If she will support a European marketing consent for sweetcorn from genetically modified maize line Bt 11. [167014]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government are accepting the advice that there are no reasons not to support the application by Syngenta for approval under the European novel foods regulations for sweetcorn from genetically modified maize line Bt11.
    Joan Ruddock: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Belgian Government, the French Government and the Austrian Government have raised serious concerns about the scientific testing of this sweetcorn, which is designed for human consumption, and its safety? How can he support the marketing of this product when it has been tested under outdated and inadequate novel foods regulation, despite the fact that a much more rigorous testing regime has just become law in the EU?
    Mr. Morley: I understand that the application complies with the more rigorous rules introduced by the EU, but I will check that point because I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in the matter. A number of countries have raised concerns about the maize, but those points do not all concern testing and food safety. The range of issues includes traceability and labelling, and we sympathise with those concerns. The concerns raised by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes were put to the lead authority, and they were answered in full to the committee's satisfaction. The maize has been approved for food use in the EU since 1998 and the Food Standards Agency and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes believe that their concerns have been answered satisfactorily.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that various farm-scale trials were

    433
    conducted in my constituency and that the industry's response was mixed? Many organic farmers are dead against GM crops. Does he agree that it is vital to implement a proper compensation scheme to cover possible damage to crops grown by non-GM farmers?
    Mr. Morley: That was one of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission's recommendations and we accept it. We have made it clear that we intend to consult on the shape of a compensation scheme. I understand that a further question has been tabled on that point, which will give an opportunity to go into the matter in more detail.

    Bovine TB
    Mr. George Osborne: When he last met farmers' representatives to discuss the problem of tuberculosis in cattle. [167015]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Ministers regularly meet farmers and their representatives and bovine TB often features in those discussions. I recently received a delegation of Gloucestershire farmers, as well as visiting a farm affected by TB in my home county, Devon. Farmers have also been represented at each of the regional TB strategy workshops, which we are holding as part of the consultation on the review of the TB strategy.
    Mr. Osborne: If the Minister came to Cheshire, he would know that dairy farmers there want the Government to stop dragging their feet and get a grip on the bovine TB problem. Can he predict when a policy will be implemented, and whether it will take Professor Godfray's findings into account?
    Mr. Bradshaw: The policy is being reviewed and we will take those findings into account. We are listening, not least to a delegation from Cheshire that advocated a number of extra measures, such as pre-movement and post-movement testing, to prevent the spread of TB to areas that currently have a relatively low level of infection, such as Cheshire. We are consulting on those measures and my officials would be pleased to receive ideas or representations from either the hon. Gentleman or representatives of the farming industry in his constituency.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: Last week, I discussed that exact problem with Warwickshire farmers, who are concerned about the risks and the slow progress towards a solution. Is the Minister confident that adequate veterinary resources are in place to deliver pre-movement testing in a timely and cost-effective way?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. The level of testing increases all the time. We have overcome the post-foot and mouth backlog and the level of testing is higher than that before foot and mouth.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: Bovine TB is extremely serious—it is taken very seriously in dairy areas of the United Kingdom—and I fully support
    434
    the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). A number of farmers in my constituency are becoming increasingly concerned about when the Government review will be concluded and when the Government will make recommendations for action. Will the Minister state the cost of bovine TB?
    Mr. Bradshaw: In the past year, bovine TB cost the taxpayer £74 million. The cost includes not only compensation, which is about half that figure, but the substantial sums that the Government commit to research into vaccines and to the badger culling trials. We recognise that the problem is incredibly serious for the farming industry—the difficulty is that there are no magic wand solutions, as some in this House and the media seem to think.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: I think that the farmer whom the Minister mentioned is Mr. Tony Yewdall from Devon, who is in despair today as he awaits the results of Monday's tuberculin test. He has lost 48 of his pedigree Guernsey cattle. He effectively runs a closed herd, and has brought in only three animals in the past year. He has experienced a very large increase in his badger population and wrote to the Minister asking for a licence to remove or have badgers removed under section 10(2)(a) of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which was passed by the last Conservative Government to stop the disgusting practice of badger baiting. The Minister kindly replied to him, saying that he would not issue licences
    "except in truly exceptional circumstances"
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not allow such a long supplementary. It is unfair to the House—there are other Members. Let the Minister try to answer.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I did indeed spend about half a day with Mr. Yewdall and his family and we examined every possible way of avoiding culling his cattle before they calved. I recognised that it was a very distressing experience for him. I have to say, however, that the very strong, unanimous veterinary advice that I received said that it would set a dangerous precedent to make an exception in this case and that it would make further infection on his farm and on neighbouring farms worse.
    If the hon. Gentleman has changed Conservative party policy, as he has been quoted in some of the media as having done, so that the Conservative party would now license individual farmers to cull badgers, he should come clean and say so.

    GM Crops
    Mr. Peter Luff: If she will make a statement on her policy on assigning legal liability relating to the planting of genetically modified crops. [167017]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government recognise that the commercial growing of GM crops raises issues of legal liability. We have made it clear that we will consult stakeholders on options for providing compensation for any economic

    435
    losses suffered by non-GM farmers through no fault of their own. We are also considering the issue of liability for environmental damage.
    Mr. Luff: I am grateful for that helpful response, but why did the Government engage in a shallow procedural trick to stop the vote on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker)? I accept that they wanted to oppose it, but surely a debate would have been helpful. I understand that there is the prospect in the near future of a debate in Government time on GM crops. If such a debate takes place, will the Minister address the issues at much greater length than he can during a parliamentary question and answer?
    Mr. Morley: I can certainly confirm that a commitment was given that there would be an opportunity for a debate on GM crops in Government time, and that commitment is being honoured. I look forward to that debate, which will give all Members an opportunity to raise whatever aspect of the issue they choose.

    US Warships (Disposal)
    Alan Simpson: If she will make a statement on responsibility for the US ghost ships in the UK. [167019]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Four US ships are currently docked in Hartlepool. We understand that the company concerned intends to submit the necessary applications for planning permission and a waste management licence for the Graythorp site for the dismantling of the vessels, which would need to be considered by the relevant authorities. In the meantime, dismantling work on the ships is prevented and they are subject to regular inspection by the authorities.
    Alan Simpson: The Minister will remember that, when he gave evidence before the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs during our inquiry into ghost ships, there arose the question of the point at which the legal liability for those ships would fall on the UK. In his evidence, he said that the clock was ticking under the 180-day rule, which meant that the UK would assume liability for the ships on 19 May. He also told the Committee that he would seek clarification with the EU as to whether the new 365-day regulations would come in before the weather window opened. Finally, he assured us that when the weather window opened, the ships would be returned.
    Can the Minister tell the House—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has enough to go on.
    Mr. Morley: I have checked the situation under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development rules and the EU rules, and the 365-day rule is the relevant one. The ships are stored safely at Hartlepool and are regularly inspected. My hon. Friend will be aware that, following a meeting of the non-governmental organisations, I have agreed to put in
    436
    place an overall strategy for dealing with recycling ships in the UK. The ownership of the ships and liability rests with Able UK and MARAD—the US Maritime Administration—and the regulator is the Environment Agency, in which I have the utmost confidence. The weather window for the return of the ships is, realistically, around the end of May. However, I do not want to duck the issue. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that we should consider the best environmental option, which, in my view, is to recycle them on site. Of course, that requires the necessary legal and environmental permissions. If they cannot he recycled on site, the next best option is to recycle them in the United Kingdom or the European Union. If that cannot be done, they will have to be returned. However, if we are concerned about environmental outcomes—I hope that hon. Members are—the best environmental option is to recycle on site.

    Incinerators (Transport of Waste)
    Bob Russell: What guidance she gives to local authorities on the transport of waste to incinerators. [167021]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires transport of controlled waste to be carried out by an authorised person in accordance with the waste duty of care code. Waste collection authorities are authorised persons for this purpose. The waste duty of care code of practice of 1996 provides guidance to everyone who handles controlled waste, including its transportation.
    Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, as far it went. Does he agree that the proximity principle needs to tightened so that waste is not carried long distances, and certainly not more than 10 miles? Does he also agree that, if local authorities want their waste incinerated, they should have incinerators in their backyard, thus ensuring that London's rubbish is not carted 60 miles to a proposed incinerator in Colchester?
    Mr. Morley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course it is desirable to deal with waste as near as possible to its source. However, he knows that getting permission for incineration capacity is difficult. If the Liberal Democrats now support the provision of incineration capacity when that is the best environmental option, it might make matters easier.

    Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What proportion of the increase in carbon dioxide emissions in 2003 was due to (a) an increase in energy consumption and (b) an increase in aviation fuel consumption.[167022]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): The increase can largely be accounted for by higher energy consumption, with the increase in power station emissions being partly offset by lower emissions from residential energy use, transportation and industrial energy use. The share of domestic aviation cannot yet be separately identified within transportation.
    Mr. Thomas: Earlier, the Minister said that the Government had a good story to tell on the matter. By

    437
    accident or design, that is partly true. However, are not the Government about to lose their pole position in Europe? The worrying decline in the reduction of CO2 emissions needs to be reversed. Will he assure hon. Members that the submission that he is preparing under the EU emissions trading directive will not retreat from the aims and objectives that were set out in the initial consultation, especially the 5.8 per cent. reduction that is expected from the industrial sector?
    Mr. Morley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will stick to the targets and objectives in the energy White Paper. When setting a cap, we must take account of current circumstances and modelling. We have already set it at 16.4 per cent. in the national allocation plan. We are discussing that with industry, but our intention is to reach 20 per cent. by 2010. We have made better progress on our Kyoto commitments, as I have outlined to hon. Members. I am confident that, once we get the European emissions trading scheme up and running, British industry will do better than the trajectory that we are setting for it and that we will reach the 20 per cent. target. However, we have said that we will make necessary adjustments in 2007 or 2008 to achieve it.
    Mr. Morley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will stick to the targets and objectives in the energy White Paper. When setting a cap, we must take account of current circumstances and modelling. We have already set it at 16.4 per cent. in the national allocation plan. We are discussing that with industry, but our intention is to reach 20 per cent. by 2010. We have made better progress on our Kyoto commitments, as I have outlined to hon. Members. I am confident that, once we get the European emissions trading scheme up and running, British industry will do better than the trajectory that we are setting for it and that we will reach the 20 per cent. target. However, we have said that we will make necessary adjustments in 2007 or 2008 to achieve it.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that CO2 capture and storage in depleted undersea oilfields, which is permissible under the OSPAR convention, would make an important contribution to carbon reduction? Since that has been recognised in a recently published Department of Trade and Industry report, will he support further work on the proposal so that it can become part of the Government's carbon abatement technology programme?
    Mr. Morley: It is important that we consider all the options in relation to reducing greenhouse gases and CO2. That will include increasing the amount of renewables—to which the Government are committed, following the energy White Paper—and clean fuel technology. We also need to look at carbon sequestration. I do not see that as a long-term solution, but it might be useful in the medium term. We would
    438
    have to assess its environmental impact in some detail and we will. Nevertheless, it is an option, and we should give serious consideration to it.

    Fisheries (Scotland)
    Mr. Michael Weir: What recent discussions she has had with Scottish fishermen's organisations regarding the effect on the Scottish fishing industry of the European fishing agreement. [167023]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I have regular meetings with members of the Scottish fishing industry and met them recently in Edinburgh at the launch of the Prime Minister's strategy unit report on the future of the fishing industry. I also recently received a delegation that included the hon. Gentleman, at which time he raised a number of issues relevant to the fishing industry in Scotland that I hope have been resolved to his satisfaction.
    Mr. Weir: I thank the Minister for his answer. Certainly, some of the issues have been resolved. The changes in the map are welcome, although the draconian new enforcement measures are perhaps not quite so welcome. Issues regarding days at sea have yet to be resolved. The Minister will recall that, in European Standing Committee A, he indicated that he was still discussing that issue with Europe. Does he share the view of Ross Finnie, the Scottish fishing Minister, who said on his return to work yesterday that he was horribly disappointed at the time Europe was taking to deal with the issue? Can the Under-Secretary give us an idea of when these matters will be dealt with?
    Mr. Bradshaw: We will certainly make the representations that the hon. Gentleman would like us to make in regard to those fishermen with haddock permits spending more time at sea. The wheels of the Commission sometimes do not move as fast as we would like, but we will certainly try to make them move as quickly as they can.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 27 APRIL—Progress on consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 28 APRIL—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 29 APRIL—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments followed by Opposition half-day [7th allotted day] (Part 2). There will be a half-day debate entitled "The failure of the Government to protect the UK from animal and plant diseases" on an Opposition motion.
FRIDAY 30 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 3 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
TUESDAY 4 MAY—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 5 MAY—Opposition half-day [10th allotted day] (Part 1). There will be a half-day debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution on the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, followed by a debate on genetically modified crops on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 6 MAY—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for May will be:
THURSDAY 6 MAY—Debate on the report from the Transport Committee on ports.
THURSDAY 13 MAY—Debate on poverty and south Asia.
THURSDAY 20 MAY—Debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism.
THURSDAY 27 MAY—Debate on the report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee on judicial appointments and a Supreme Court (Court of Final Appeal).
Mr. Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I have one or two questions for him—a sort of tidying-up exercise, really. He will remember last year describing the European constitution as a "tidying-up exercise", and he went on to say:
"I think those who are starting off on a campaign for a referendum might as well put away their placards and stop wasting their money because we are not going to do it."
Now that the Prime Minister has slapped him down, engaged reverse gear and is to have a referendum, would he agree that it is his job to bring it on? Or is his head as firmly in the sand as that of the Foreign Secretary, who said today that the referendum might never happen?
440
The Leader of the House can be assured of our full co-operation, so may we have the necessary Bill for the referendum within the next two weeks? Does he agree that the constitution that the Government negotiate cannot be changed by this House, so there is no need for lengthy debate before we have a referendum? Is it not right that if the British people say no in the referendum, that will be the end of the constitution, or does he take the view that he would simply keep asking until the people get it right? Is not the correct approach to accept the verdict of the people? If they vote yes, so be it. We would accept such a result. If they vote no, there should be no constitution. Why cannot the Government accept that?
Will an oral statement be made next week about local authority finances? May we have a debate on the Floor of the House before any capping occurs?
On Northern Ireland, may I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1011, which refers to the worrying recent monitoring report?
[That this House notes with great concern the report of the Independent Monitoring Commission; and calls upon the Government to make parliamentary time available for the House to reconsider the facilities made available by the House authorities to Sinn Fein members.]
What time can he make available for a debate on that?
Finally, the Foreign Secretary has promised a debate on the desperate situation in Zimbabwe. The English cricket board needs clear advice from the Government against a tour. When can we have that debate, and when can we have the advice?
Mr. Hain: I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his inspiring series of questions, for which I am most grateful.
The Government have made clear our position on the tour to Zimbabwe. It is a matter, however, for the English cricket authorities to decide—
Mr. Simon Thomas: And Wales.
Mr. Hain: Indeed, the English and Wales cricket authorities must decide. Glamorgan players qualify for the English team, in a welcome sign of unity of the United Kingdom. The situation has changed significantly in recent times, however. An open letter has been signed by 13 white players in the Zimbabwean side, including the former captain, Heath Streak, which says:
"There has, in our view, been racial and ethnic discrimination in the selection of the national team."
That seems to put the issue in a different perspective. It is not simply a question of appeasing a despot, the brutal tyrant Robert Mugabe, but an issue about sport. That takes me back to when I was in the picture. more than 30 years ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "Digging up pitches."] No, I never dug up any cricket pitches. I ran on them and sat down on them to stop apartheid tours, for which Nelson Mandela thanked me, as, I guess, would most Members of the House.
With the England cricket tour to Zimbabwe, we are faced with a different situation, which is that the Zimbabwean team, according to the former captain and 12 other white players, appears to be rigged in a discriminatory way, on racial lines. That puts the issue

441
in an entirely different category. I also note that the Australian leg spinner Stuart MacGill has refused to take part, and I would expect many English cricketers to refuse to take part, too. If they did, I would be with them all the way.
On the question of the European Union constitution, about which the shadow Leader of the House helpfully and generous quoted all sorts of things that I had been saying last year, may I paraphrase Churchill by saying that there is no better diet than eating one's own words? That is precisely what the Prime Minister, I, the Foreign Secretary and a number of others have been doing these past few days. [Interruption.] No, it is very appetising.
The serious point, which I know that the shadow Leader of the House will want me to make, as he asked his question in his customary serious fashion, is that we took the view quite properly, as did many Members on both sides of the House, that the House of Commons was the proper forum to ratify such treaties, as has been done previously, subject to line by line scrutiny. It was clear from the public opposition, however, that that position was not sustainable. The Prime Minister and the Government have therefore responded to public opinion and opinion in the House, and have decided to call a referendum, for which we deserve credit. That is the issue.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of subsidiary questions. In particular, he asked whether we would have a referendum Bill within two weeks. What an absurd question for someone who aspires to be the Leader of the House of Commons to ask! We do not even have a settled constitutional treaty yet. How could we have a referendum on something that has not even been finally negotiated, let alone agreed in a final signing ceremony by all member states? What an absurd proposition. Moreover, if the hon. Gentleman is at all serious about aspiring to be Leader of the House, he must know that a Bill of that kind could not possibly be drafted within days. We should get real on this question.
Effectively, the hon. Gentleman has said that there should be a pre-legislative referendum. That is the new official position of the Conservative party.
Mr. Simon Thomas: What about Wales?
Mr. Hain: I shall come to Wales in a moment.
Only a few years ago, the Leader of the Opposition said:
"A pre-legislative referendum is designed to pre-empt parliamentary debate. It is not a new device. The device was the hallmark of continental dictatorships between the wars."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 736.]
Let us consider what the constitutional treaty might look like. It will be a document with nearly 500 pages, nearly 500 clauses and nearly 100,000 words. Ought not such a document to be scrutinised in detail by this Parliament before being put to the people? This is a very different proposition from that of 1997, when we asked the people of Wales and Scotland whether they agreed with the principle of a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly. What we are talking about now is bringing
442
together a series of past European treaties—three quarters of the new constitutional treaty will consist of them, if it is agreed—and enabling the House to examine the treaty in great detail before inviting the people of Britain to make a decision. That is the logical way to proceed, and the way we intend to proceed.
The Prime Minister has already answered the question about what would happen in the event of a "no" vote, but let me add this. We will work very hard to persuade the country of our case. If we agree to a constitutional treaty in the first place, it will only be on the basis of its being in Britain's national interests, and on the basis that all our key interests in respect of a veto on taxation, foreign policy, defence and the rest—matters that the Foreign Secretary has put before the House repeatedly—have been satisfied. If they are not satisfied, we will not agree to the treaty. If they are, we will believe—we do believe—that it will be in the country's interests, and will therefore make the case in the expectation of winning the argument and winning it in the national interest.
There will be a statement on local authority finance next Thursday, when Members will have an opportunity to question the Minister of State about capping.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Northern Ireland. As he will know, the Independent Monitoring Commission's first report has raised serious issues. He will recall that on Tuesday the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a statement to the House, saying that the Government were minded to act in line with the IMC's own recommendation that we consider withholding financial assistance from Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist party in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with that—and I think that I have answered all his questions fully and frankly.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I tell the Leader of the House how much pleasure it gives me, and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, to hear him reverting to the radical instincts of his liberal youth? I hope he may be able to extend that to other issues besides Zimbabwe.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we have at least been entirely consistent about the need for referendums on major issues relating to constitutional relationships with Europe? That applies not least to the Maastricht treaty; I recall that only a small number of Conservatives joined us in the Division Lobbies then.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the motions on today's Order Paper relate to House rather than Government matters, and that there will therefore be a free vote with no question of his seeking to dragoon his payroll colleagues into the Lobbies in the event of a Division?
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have still not heard a proper statement on the Government's proposals, or non-proposals, for House of Lords reform? He will recall that on 18 March, when I asked him when there would be a statement, he said:
"I ask the hon. Gentleman, in the nicest way, to contain himself on this matter. When we are ready to say how we are proceeding on the House of Lords questions, we will do so. An announcement will be made and he will need to wait until then."—[Official Report, 18 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 453.]

443
As it happens, the very next morning, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs made the announcement on the "Today" programme. Is not that an extraordinary disrespect for Parliament?
There is a written statement on House of Lords reform on the Order Paper today. When will we get an opportunity to hear exactly what the Government now intend and to question the appropriate Ministers? Is it not extraordinary that, apparently, in that response today, the Government ask for a wide-ranging debate but do not give us, Members of Parliament, an opportunity to debate the issue? When does the Leader of the House expect that to happen? Seven years' work—the royal commission, the White Paper, the Public Administration Committee, the Joint Committee—has been torn up overnight by the Cabinet without any response or debate in Parliament. What does he intend to do, as the defender of House of Commons rights, to ensure that that situation does not continue?
Mr. Hain: On the question of a referendum, the hon. Gentleman invites me to accept the proposition that the Liberal Democrats are totally consistent. As all my right hon. and hon. Friends will confirm, the Liberal Democrats will say one thing to one part of Britain and another thing to another part, to gain opportunistic advantage, so the idea of being consistent is a novel proposition from any Liberal Democrat which I regret to say I am not prepared to accept.
The debate on the security screen, which we will shortly undertake, will be a completely free vote. There will be no dragooning of anyone into the Chamber. It is a matter for the House. As I will make clear this afternoon, the decision on it was taken without consulting the Prime Minister or the Cabinet—I expressly did not consult either the Prime Minister or the Cabinet.
I have noticed the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I do not wish to anticipate the debate, but since he has raised the matter, I would point out that it raises very serious issues. I am clear where I stand on it. If he and other hon. Members wish to avoid the responsibility that I have had to undertake, that is a matter for them; but I will spell out clearly the consequences of taking that action, which could be very serious indeed, based on the security advice that I have been given by the director general of the security services.
On House of Lords reform, the hon. Gentleman says that the Government are showing disrespect for Parliament. Disrespect for the House of Commons has been shown repeatedly over the past year or two, up the corridor, by Conservative Members of the House of Lords, who have consistently defied the will of the House of Commons and sought to mobilise their majority with hereditaries to overturn the elected decisions of the Commons. That is where disrespect is being shown.
In regard to consultation and the rest of it, as the hon. Gentleman says, a written statement has been made today, which refers to the responses to the consultation that the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, undertook. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman welcomed that. There will be an opportunity to debate these matters. I give
444
him that guarantee. The Government are determined to move forward on the issue in terms of composition, the powers of the Lords, and the reform of its procedures, too.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The reason for discussing the first report of the Independent Monitoring Commission on matters in Northern Ireland is that it would give us an opportunity to influence the Government's response to the report. Some of us feel that its financial provisions are inadequate. Some of us even feel that early-day motion 1011 does not go far enough. For example—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He is getting us off to a bad start. This is questions, not statements. I ask all Members, a great many of whom are trying to catch my eye, to ask short questions, and we will have, I hope, brief answers.
Mr. Barnes: May we have a debate on the report of the Independent Monitoring Commission in order that a number of tougher measures could be brought forward? I do not think that there is an opportunity to say what those are at the moment, but there are a good number of them.
Mr. Hain: I appreciate the points that my hon. Friend has made and his long interest in and expertise on the issue. It was an independent report. It is important that we have time to consider it. He will have the opportunity to raise any specific points at oral questions next Wednesday and, of course, he is free to apply for a debate at any time.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I remind the leader of the House of what the Prime Minister said on Tuesday about the referendum on the European constitution?
"Parliament should debate it in detail and decide upon it. Then, let the people have the final say."—[Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 157.]
I invite the Leader to introduce at the earliest opportunity the legislation for elected regional assemblies so that it can be debated and decided upon before the people decide; or is it just a matter of expediency which way the Government play these matters?
Mr. Hain: No. As I have explained, there is a clear distinction between the two. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Indeed; before "ums" and "ahs" come from Opposition Members, I repeat what I have said. The question as to whether people in the north-east, north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside want an elected regional assembly or not is an issue of principle. A Bill will be published in the summer that can be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and will be available to people voting in the referendums so that they can see what they will get. That is an issue of principle: do people want something or not? The constitutional treaty is an issue of substance. We are bringing together previous treaties for which the hon. Gentleman's Government—and, I suspect, he himself—voted. Some three quarters of the clauses in the new treaty are taken from existing treaties

445
and brought together in a new form. In addition, there are new reforming and modernising measures to cope with enlargement. It is a big issue that is not about whether we join the EU or are in or out of it; or perhaps it is. Maybe that is what this is really about for some Opposition Members.
We will have detailed scrutiny of the new draft constitutional treaty and about whether it is acceptable to the British people. Before we put it to the vote, the British people will expect 100,000 words, 500 pages and 500 articles to be scrutinised in detail by the hon. Gentleman and all of us before they know what they are being invited to vote upon. That is different from whether one wants a regional assembly or not.
Ms Julia Drown: May we have a debate on how to create real choice in maternity services? A number of women in my constituency choose to give birth in the nearest midwife-led unit, which is in Malmesbury outside the primary care trust boundary. The unit is threatened with closure. May we have a debate on how we deliver, maintain and expand choice for women and on how we advertise services, as it is not just a question of looking at crude financial statistics that do not show the quality of service?
Mr. Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's point. Choice is absolutely crucial, especially to expectant mothers. There is a debate in my constituency about a decision to go to a midwife-led unit because of a shortage of consultants, so I am well aware of the issue. Actually, where it has happened elsewhere—in Caerphilly, for example, where it was subject to huge protest at the time—it has proved hugely successful and has been welcomed by women in particular. I recognise the point that she has made, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will note it carefully.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Cabinet was not consulted prior to Tuesday's statement on the constitutional referendum, and that if there is no collective decision there should be no collective responsibility? Members of the Cabinet will therefore be able to campaign on whichever side of the referendum they wish. Is not the fact that no collective decision was made another blow to democracy and another reason why the Daily Express has decided to quit supporting the Labour party and to support the Conservatives, to restore faith in our democracy?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not see a great connection between the hon. Gentleman's question and next week's business. I hope that the Leader of the House will answer briefly.
Mr. Hain: There is no connection at all, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Richard Burden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on fascism and the far right? I ask that, given the reported invitation over the coming days by the fascist British National party to Jean-Marie Le Pen to speak in the
446
west midlands. Does he agree that Le Pen's racist and anti-Semitic outbursts are well known in France, and that we do not want the kind of racism, discord and disharmony that is spread by Le Pen and perpetuated by the BNP in the west midlands or, indeed, this whole country?
Mr. Hain: Jean-Marie Le Pen is trying to exercise his right to free speech here; something he would not be able to do under the fascist, racist regimes that he supports. It is disturbing that he has been invited and all of us in this Chamber must redouble our efforts to ensure that neo-Nazis such as Le Pen get out of this country and take their hideous racist and anti-Semitic ideas with them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I once again appeal to the House for questions that relate, at least to some degree, to next week's business; otherwise, we are simply distorting the occasion.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House be prepared to come back to the House next week to clarify what was said in this House on 20 April by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), the Chairman of our eminent European Scrutiny Committee. about the referendum Bill? He said that
"full and proper parliamentary scrutiny will be applied to the Bill before any referendum."
A few moments later, the Prime Minister said that
"given that the constitutional treaty is a 300 page document"—
the Prime Minister's version must be different from the Leader of the House's one—
"it is surely right and better that the public have their say after an informed debate in the House in which we can thrash out some of the issues."—[Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 470, c. 163.]
I am asking the Leader to come back next week, as it would allow him to confirm that the constitution will be on a "take it or leave it" basis and that this House will have no opportunity to amend it. If we are to be given a 300 or 500-page document and told to take it or leave it, will he elaborate on what form he expects our debates, deliberations and scrutiny to take?
Mr. Hain: The document is 500 pages with the protocols, which I would expect the Commons to want to look at as well. The actual draft constitutional treaty is in the form that the Prime Minister described. The right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience in the House, knows that this constitutional treaty will be treated exactly like all the other treaties that have been brought before the House. A Bill will be introduced to give ratification effect—subject to a referendum in this instance—to the treaty, with the Committee stages held on the Floor of the House.
Hugh Bayley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Terry's of York, which has been making chocolate in my constituency for almost 240 years, announced this week that it intends to close, with

447
the loss of 316 jobs? Those jobs will go to accession members of the EU from eastern Europe, Sweden and Belgium. Despite the fact that we are still getting inward investment, does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the loss of manufacturing jobs from this country? Will he express my concern to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Will there be an opportunity shortly for this House to debate our country's industrial policy?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has that opportunity regularly at Trade and Industry and Treasury questions, and he has the opportunity to raise his specific constituency issue in this House through the normal channels. I understand the point; it is a serious situation and a body blow to his constituency. I saw the context in which this is taking place during a visit to China as Secretary of State for Wales. Manufacturing is fleeing to China from all over the world because engineering wages can be as low as 60p an hour. There is no way we can compete with that kind of low labour cost, except by going up the added-value chain and increasing our investment in skills and science to deliver added-value manufacturing. That is the future for the British economy, as it is for my hon. Friend's constituency. Of course, unlike in the 1980s and 1990s, his constituents will be able to apply for jobs, because there are more jobs being generated in the British economy than ever before.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Leader acknowledge the responsibility of the United Kingdom as a guarantor power in Cyprus? May we have an early debate in the House on Cyprus, a debate that might lead to an inquiry into the role of Alvaro de Soto—the Peruvian special representative of the UN Secretary-General for Cyprus—and the reasons for his perceived sympathetic bias towards the Greek Cypriots to the disadvantage of the Turkish Cypriots?
Mr. Hain: I must deprecate, in the gentlest possible way, the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I know Mr. de Soto from my time as Europe Minister, and he is an expert and highly experienced United Nations representative who has done a fantastic job. If the situation were really as the hon. Gentleman describes it, it would be interesting to know why the Turkish Cypriots were anticipated to vote in favour in the coming referendum and why there was some scepticism among the Greek Cypriots. I myself hope—I hope that the whole House shares this view—that both Greek and Turkish Cypriots will vote yes to having a future for their country in the European Union.
Keith Vaz: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment that any referendum on the constitution will look at the wider issue of Britain's involvement in Europe and the work that has been done and the progress made in the past seven years. However, may we have an early statement on how that will affect the Government's commitment to a referendum on the euro? Are we now to assume that there will definitely not be a referendum on the euro during this Parliament, or is there a possibility of a referendum on the euro before the referendum on the constitution if the economic tests are met? May we have an early statement on that?
Mr. Hain: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early statement on that matter, although I pay tribute to his
448
long advocacy of Britain's entry into the euro, a policy that I respect, and for which he has gained respect. I remind him that the Chancellor announced at the Budget only last month what the situation on the euro was. We will call a referendum if and when the economic circumstances are right, but not before. Given that the Chancellor announced that policy only last month, I do not anticipate another early statement—certainly not next week.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: Can the Leader of the House allay my fears that the Prime Minister set an unfortunate precedent yesterday when he said that as and when he loses the EU constitution referendum he will come back to this House, and that further questions will be put and referendums held until he gets a yes vote? Can the Leader of the House assure us that if he loses the vote on the screen today, he will not come back next week with a further motion to try to reverse the decision that we take this afternoon?
Mr. Hain: I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman as a parliamentarian, but he must not misrepresent what the Prime Minister said. If he looks at Hansard, he will find confirmation that what he has just said bears no resemblance to what the Prime Minister said. We will work hard for a yes vote if we have an agreed constitutional treaty to put to the people of Britain after it has passed through this House. That is our position, because we think that that will be in the national interest. We are not going into a referendum expecting to lose it, and we will fight and work hard to persuade people of our case. It is therefore extremely premature to anticipate any other result.
On the security screen, I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) earlier. The House must decide on that, and although the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) probably takes a different view from mine, there would be serious consequences if the House decided not to proceed with the introduction of a permanent screen. When the right hon. Gentleman hears what I have to say this afternoon about the clear advice from the head of MI5, he will be clear, as I am, that I am willing to accept my responsibilities on the matter. The issue will be whether he is prepared to do the same.
Andrew Mackinlay: Has the Leader of the House noticed that there is no parliamentary dimension to the state visit of President Kwasniewski of Poland? May we have a statement on policies relating to state visits? I gently remind the Leader of the House that in the lifetime of this Labour Government, no head of state has made a state visit and addressed both Houses of Parliament and the Royal Gallery. That is wrong. That should happen, but the practice has been eroded because of the political initiative of having the President of China and George Bush to visit here, although that did not appeal to many parliamentarians. May we return to the situation in which state visits are for the Crown, Parliament and people, so that Parliament can welcome those people without being sidelined by such political initiatives?
Mr. Hain: I certainly should not want to see Parliament sidelined, and as a reputable parliamentarian, my hon.

449
Friend would quickly trip me up if that were to happen. I shall certainly bear his points in mind and discuss them with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and others, to see where that leaves us.
Mr. Peter Lilley: May we have an early debate next week on changes to the constitution? I do not mean those that are proposed to be dealt with by a referendum, but the change introduced unilaterally by the Prime Minister: namely the apparent abolition of Cabinet government. In that debate, may we have an answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on whether the Cabinet was consulted? If it was not, are its members bound by the decision that they did not collectively take, or are they still collectively bound by the previous reverse decision that they had taken? May we have those matters cleared up, or are we to believe that members of the Cabinet are simply the meaningless ciphers that they have long appeared to be to many Opposition Members?
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that, having just attended the Cabinet this morning, I can assure him that Cabinet government is alive, well and flourishing, and that that matter was discussed this morning, introduced by the Prime Minister—
Mr. Forth:This morning!
Mr. Hain: Yes, at this morning's meeting the Prime Minister discussed that matter. I was consulted on the decision, as were other members of the Cabinet, so the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) can be reassured on the matter.
Kate Hoey: I appreciate the remarks that the Leader of the House has made on Zimbabwe, but will he answer the question of when we will have a debate on it in Government time? I thought that that commitment had been given, and it is important that we have the debate soon, especially given that the England and Wales Cricket Board will meet the Government on 4 May to discuss Zimbabwe's tour and its visit to this country, during which it will play at the Oval in my constituency. In view of the deportation of the distinguished sports journalist Mihir Bose from Zimbabwe this week, while he was covering a cricket match, will the Leader of the House try to use his influence on the issue, on which I know that he feels strongly, to hold a proper, full debate as soon as possible?
Mr. Hain: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's consistent record on this matter, on which we share the same view. I also share her condemnation of the deportation of Mihir Bose, who is a fine cricket correspondent.
On whether there should be a debate before or after 4 May, we should await the meeting between the cricket authorities and Ministers, and see what transpires after that. I do not think that the Government's position will change. This is a decision for the cricket authorities, not
450
for the Government, although the Foreign Office and others have given the cricket authorities the advice that they have sought.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Leader of the House amend the business for next Thursday, when we are due to debate in Westminster Hall the report of the International Development Committee on the humanitarian situation in the west bank and the Gaza strip, so that, rather than debating that albeit important report, we can debate the foreign policy aspects of what is now happening in Israel and the occupied territories? There have been some worrying changes and pronouncements from the American side over what have been called the new realities on the ground in Palestine. That has huge implications for not only next week's debate but the foreign policy aspects of the Government's position. Would it not therefore be appropriate for next Thursday to be taken over by a debate in the Chamber on the Government's policy on Israel and the occupied territories?
Mr. Hain: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, and interest in that issue is widely, if not unanimously, shared across the House. I am sure that he will take every opportunity available, while staying strictly in order, to raise the points that he wishes to raise on that matter, because the humanitarian situation reflects the foreign policy failures that there have been multilaterally and internationally in the attempt to resolve the desperate situation of the Palestinians and their relationship with the state of Israel.
Glenda Jackson: When will this House debate in Government time the situation in Iraq? The Prime Minister has said that we have a military and political strategy, and no criticism can be laid against British troops, who continue to conduct themselves with great courage, discipline and dedication. However, it was this House that committed those troops to a war, albeit on a false prospectus. Surely we have a duty to examine precisely what the political strategy is, to ensure that it gives those troops the proper support, and that it can perhaps begin to deliver to the Iraqi people some of those promises so glibly—and at the moment, so emptily—made.
Mr. Hain: Despite recognising my hon. Friend's position on Iraq—it is a principled and honest one, but so is the Prime Minister's and the Government's, as she will doubtless agree, even though it differs from hers—I do not accept it. Her reference to glibness is not worthy of her. The Prime Minister made a statement on Iraq on Monday. She had the opportunity to question him then, and there will be further such opportunities. It is a very difficult situation, but she will recognise that everything is being done to try to contain the terrorist attempt to destabilise Iraq's democratic progress.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Will the Leader of the House say whether he is shortly to publish the Government's response to the Procedure Committee report on debate procedures, the role of the Speaker and private Members' Bills, and their response to its report on resolutions relating to access to this House, which are normally passed at the beginning of every parliamentary

451
Session? Will he find an early opportunity to debate those important reports? The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) mentioned the Independent. Monitoring Commission. May we have an early debate on that issue? Perhaps that would enable this House to withdraw the lavish facilities and resources currently made available to Sinn Fein. It is unacceptable to have one rule for the Northern Ireland Assembly and another for this place.
Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this question was raised with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland only the other day, and as I made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), there will be an opportunity to raise it next week during Northern Ireland questions. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I shall respond very soon, on the Government's behalf, to the Procedure Committee's report on debate procedures. He has repeatedly reminded me of the absence of such a response, as he is entitled to do. The question of public disorder surrounding the House is much more tricky. We are consulting on whether time-consuming legislation is needed, or whether other ways of dealing with the problem can be found. We shall respond to the hon. Gentleman, his Committee and the whole House as soon as we can.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week on local authorities' ethical handling of planning and development? Only yesterday, the Scunthorpe Telegraph broke the story that a business in the area seeking a large and controversial expansion on prime agricultural land, against the interests and views of local people and the parish council, has made a £5,000 donation to the council's ruling Tory group. It is staggering to note that in the council leader's opinion his colleagues need to take advice as to whether they can determine this matter. I doubt whether anybody locally is any doubt as to what should be done. Can the House find time to debate these matters, and to make it clear that planning should be in the interests of the local area? It should not be a question of "he who pays the piper calls the tune".
Mr. Hain: Given my hon. Friend's description of the situation, the only response that I can give is to congratulate him and the Scunthorpe Telegraph on bringing this scandal to Commons' attention. I hope that the local communities recognise the seriousness of the situation. Planning decisions should not be subject to political donations; rather, they should be taken according to planning law and according to the interests of local people.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Yesterday, the US Congress heard evidence about the Iraqi oil for food programme and about a list of 270 non-Iraqi names who allegedly benefited from Saddam Hussein's largesse by corrupting that scheme. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week on the implications of the programme for Britain, and in particular for the one British subject named on that list— it is on the internet and available to anybody—so that a criminal
452
investigation can take place and his former friend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) can have his name cleared?
Mr. Hain: Frankly, I am not sure that those two matters are related, although they might be. As a former Minister with responsibility for Iraq, I remember evidence consistently being produced of Saddam's manipulating the oil for food programme, smuggling out oil and getting hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue—if not billions—to sustain his despotic regime. That is one reason why the situation that had continued for years was not sustainable, and I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that view. This is a serious allegation and the Government, along with the United Nations' authorities, will doubtless want to investigate it urgently and to see what transpires.
David Cairns: As part of the general debate on Europe, will we have time for a specific debate on the comments of EU Commission President Romano Prodi, who said that, should Scotland or Wales leave the United Kingdom, they would also automatically leave the EU and have to re-apply for membership, with no guarantee whatsoever of being re-admitted? So is it not true that Scotland and Wales are better off within the United Kingdom, and that the separatists who peddle the myth of independence in Europe run the risk of doing irreparable damage to the Scottish and Welsh economies and people?
Mr. Hain: Absolutely, and if I can get an early debate on that issue, I will be happy to do so. As my hon. Friend rightly confirms, the EU Commission President has made it crystal clear that if Wales and Scotland became independent, as the Scottish and Welsh nationalists advocate, they would immediately forfeit membership of the European Union. That would leave them outside the biggest and richest single market in the industrial world and would bring bankruptcy upon them. The people of Wales ought to know about the futility of that independent strategy.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I am still waiting for a response from the Northern Ireland Office that I was supposed to receive by 26 March. Next Monday is 26 April. Is it possible that the office is on a go-slow, thereby keeping pace with those of its civil service colleagues who are protesting about bad wages, or is it just inept?
Mr. Hain: The Northern Ireland Office is certainly not inept, and I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman does not really allege that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been extremely busy in recent weeks dealing with the many critical issues with which the hon. Gentleman is very familiar. Now that he has made the point about his correspondence, the office will be well aware of it.
Mr. Wayne David: May we have a debate on the recent remarks by Sir John Kerr, who, as Members will know, is a retired senior British diplomat and was the secretary-general on the Convention on the Future of Europe? He said that

453
"the convention on the future of Europe had no mandate to lay the foundation of a state, and it did not."
It drafted a constitutional treaty for Europe, not a constitution for Britain. Does the Leader of the House agree with that view?
Mr. Hain: I completely agree with it. Sir John Kerr was a very highly regarded diplomat and permanent secretary to the Foreign Office—I worked with him as a Foreign Office Minister—and he served the Convention on the Future of Europe with great distinction, and I doubt whether we would have successfully drawn up the draft text were it not for his expertise. We should therefore take very seriously the points that he makes, one of which is that this is a constitutional treaty for the whole of Europe. If Britain decided that it wanted to opt out of that treaty, there would be very serious consequences. That would be especially true if the current Leader of the Opposition were in government, and was unwilling to renegotiate or to try to find a way forward to satisfy any criticisms that might have been expressed in a referendum campaign. The reality is that if he were unwilling to discuss such matters, in effect, Britain would be opting out of Europe and out of the new constitutional treaty.
Mr. Peter Luff: May we have an early statement on the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that the valour and skill of servicemen past and present are properly recognised through the efficient and timely distribution of medals? Is the Leader of the House aware of the deep concern that exists in my constituency and elsewhere at the announcement this week of the closure of the Droitwich Spa medal office, at the busiest time in its history? It is having to cope with many applications for the Suez, or GSM canal-zone, medal, and the increasing number of Iraq medals. Its closure could compromise the efficient distribution of those medals.
Mr. Hain: I am very concerned to hear about that. I am sure that the Ministry of Defence and the other Government authorities will want to take close note of what the hon. Gentleman has said and address the problem urgently.
Mr. Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the important issue of bus deregulation outside London? Since its inception there has been a constant fall in bus passenger mileage, and unfortunately that fall has continued since 1997. Having given 42 days' notice, a bus company such as First Mainline, which is in my constituency, is able to withdraw a service to the people of Mosborough. As a result, many hundreds of people, including pensioners, are cut off from their local supermarket, and locally elected representatives have no say whatsoever in the taking of such action.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend will have the chance to apply for such a debate. I am concerned to hear about what he said, as will be the Secretary of State for Transport, not least because the Government have provided more subsidies for bus services than ever
454
before. That is a policy that we intend to stick to. Should the Opposition gain power, that funding would, of course, be reneged upon, because they are determined to cut transport budgets in the first two years of their period of office.
Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a debate on a matter that should be of grave concern to us all? The publication of the Disability Rights Commission report, "The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled People" showed that 86 per cent. of websites were not accessible to disabled people and the majority of the rest were only partially accessible. If we cannot have a debate on that matter, will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made on disabled people's access to Government websites?
Mr. Hain: That is a very good point, which I have not heard before, and I am sure that the relevant Minister will want to reflect carefully on what the hon. Gentleman said. I am not sure whether the issue could be dealt with through the forthcoming disability rights Bill, to which the Government are committed, and which will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman has certainly provided a well-made point that has been well taken.
Dr. Brian Iddon: May I welcome the Government's announcement on Monday that education maintenance allowances worth £30 a week are to be rolled out nationally from this September? Bolton was one of the 55 pilot local authorities that trialled EMAs: it found increased participation in post-16 education and improved attendance by those who were enrolled. May we soon have a debate on this excellent Government initiative?
Mr. Hain: If it were possible and Government business allowed it, I would be happy to arrange such a debate, although my hon. Friend could apply for a private Members' debate in the usual way. I agree that it is a fantastic policy, which will provide real hope and opportunity to thousands of youngsters who are now denied those prospects by leaving school early. As he said, the pilots have shown that the staying on rate is much higher, which is why I find it extraordinary that the Conservative Opposition describe it as a gimmick. My hon. Friend would agree that Conservative Members should be told that his constituents who have benefited from the policy describe it as life opportunity, not a gimmick. The Conservatives should be reminded of that at the next general election.
David Burnside: Northern Ireland questions next Wednesday will not give Members the opportunity to debate or vote on equality of facilities for all hon. Members of the House. Following the £120,000 fine levied on Sinn Fein in the Assembly, which was authorised by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, surely we should have a full debate and an opportunity to vote on the £500,000 allocated by the House last year to two members of the army council—Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams—and their colleagues. They should have no

455
facilities or finance from the House until they come in and swear or affirm an oath of loyalty as other right hon. and hon. Members of the House do.
Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the independent report referred not only to Sinn Fein, as he pointed out, but to the Progressive Unionist party—
David Burnside: It does not have Members here.
Mr. Hain: I acknowledge that that party is not represented here, as the hon. Gentleman said. He has made his point.
Chris Bryant: May we have an urgent debate—preferably instead of one of the footling Opposition day debates over the next fortnight—on the precise consequences of the UK voting against the constitutional treaty? Is it not the case that if we voted against it, any Government—Conservative or Labour—would have to start renegotiating another treaty with EU colleagues? If that Government chose to adopt a line and could not persuade a single other European country to accept it, and then decided to act unilaterally, it would consign Britain to the sidelines of Europe, which would be bad for our economy and our country's future.
Mr. Hain: Indeed, which is why I would welcome the opportunity to have a debate. I invite the shadow Leader of the House to table an Opposition motion on the subject in order to defend his party's policy on that matter. The consequence would be exactly as my hon. Friend says. If we went into a referendum on the basis of rejecting the whole idea of bringing together the existing European treaties into a single constitutional treaty, we would be left saying to the other 24 member states that they should walk away and do their own thing. If that happened, we would be left outside, on a ticket out of
456
the European Union. That is the Opposition's policy, and they will be reminded of it in the coming months running up to the referendum.
John Mann: Following this morning's revelation that an estimated £30 million—perhaps much more—has been deducted by solicitors in various guises from miners' compensation, may we have an urgent debate or statement next week? We should discuss, in particular, whether the Government ever envisaged that miners, their widows and families should receive anything less than 100 per cent. of their industrial injury compensation.
Mr. Hain: As a former energy Minister, I can be absolutely clear that it was always expressly understood that, under the terms of the court judgment and the Government's compensation scheme, the costs of legal fees incurred would be borne by the scheme, not by miners themselves, retired miners or their families. Unless a separate agreement has been negotiated—as in the case of the National Union of Miners in Nottinghamshire—and such an express agreement falls within the scheme, what my hon. Friend mentioned is unacceptable and, I would suggest, falls outside the rules of the scheme. No miners should have their compensation docked in that way by unscrupulous solicitors.

BILL PRESENTED
  AGE-RELATED PAYMENTS
  Mr. Secretary Smith,supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Malcolm Wicks, presented (under Standing Order No. 50 (Procedure upon bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to make provision for payments by the Secretary of State to persons over the age of 70; and to enable provision to be made for payments by the Secretary of State to persons over the age of 60. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 92].

Points of Order
1.27 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to raise a point of order in advance of the debate. The debate that we are about to commence is on an extremely serious issue: the erection of a screen, separating us from our constituents and our electorates, which has cost £500,000. We have no papers on it. The Government tell us that it is such a serious issue—the security position being so demanding—that the screen had to be erected in advance of the House having an opportunity to debate the matter.
I do not see how we can have a proper debate and discuss the serious issues that have to be addressed without being able to meet in private. Some of the points that I would want to raise in an attempt to assess the balance of risk and the nature of the threat that we face in the Chamber might, if given wider currency, only play into the hands of our enemies.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, believing that there is a case for the House to meet in private to debate the issues, provided that we can be assured that Members attending—as I look around, I see mostly responsible right hon. and hon. Members—would not reveal any sensitive information; otherwise, I fear that if we asked the Leader or Deputy Leader of the House to explain the security advice given to the authorities, on which we are invited to rely, they would say simply that they could not provide that information because it was too sensitive. In that case, how could we have a proper debate? Before I formally move that the House sit in private, it might be helpful if other right hon. and hon. Members shared their views on the matter.
Mr. Speaker: Before any hon. Member rises to speak, I remind the hon. Gentleman that a memorandum is available in the Vote Office. Also, I must correct him in one respect: it was not the Government who brought this matter forward, but the House of Commons Commission, of which I am Chairman. I remind the House that I made a statement on this matter. One of the purposes of the temporary screen is to allow the public to be present, while affording us the protection that we desire. It is entirely up to the House as to whether it meets in private. The hon. Gentleman will know that I must put any motion to that effect before the House immediately. However, he will recall that not so long ago I had to clear the Public Gallery for a day because of misbehaviour. That was a sad day, for me and for the House.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth): the present circumstances of the terrorist threat are different from any previously experienced in our country's history. This is a very different scenario. There are questions to which I want detailed answers, but it is not appropriate for me to ask them, or to require the Leader of the House to answer them, in an open forum. We may feel that our democracy is under
458
challenge, but the security available to hon. Members, the staff of the House and visiting members of the public must have primacy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I call the Leader of the House.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that what I have to say will help the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). As they both know, this matter went before the House of Commons Commission. As I hope to explain shortly, it was also referred to senior Privy Councillors. The consensus to go ahead was reached on an all-party basis. I shall certainly aim to answer as many questions as I can, and I will make very clear, in graphic terms, the security advice that we received. I think that that should be done in open session. It is important both that people understand why the House is taking this decision, and that the House has the opportunity to explain matters to the public. We should not shut them out.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, I confirm that the Commission decided the matter. The shadow Cabinet was not consulted, and neither was the Cabinet, I believe. The matter was dealt with on an all-party basis in the Commission. Secondly, I agree that, given the interest that people have in this matter, we should hold our debate in such a way that they are able to know the arguments being deployed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to take further points of order on this matter. If certain hon. Members feel that we should meet in private, the best way to proceed is to settle the matter now; otherwise, we are in danger of pursuing the debate by means of points of order.
Mr. Howarth: May I first thank you, Mr. Speaker, for correcting me and advising that this is not a Government but a House of Commons Commission matter? As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, it has been discussed by a very small number of hon. Members. Therefore, to assist the House and expedite the debate, I propose that we sit in private. We should be able to speak freely, without fear of betraying information that should not be in the public domain.
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 (motion to sit in private):—
The House divided: Ayes 15, Noes 211.

Division No. 137]

[1:34 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Banks, Tony

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hendry, Charles

Chope, Christopher

Robathan, Andrew

Evans, Nigel

Spicer, Sir Michael

459

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Stanley, rh Sir John

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mr. Eric Forth and

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Mr. Gerald Howarth

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Gilroy, Linda

Alexander, Douglas

Goggins, Paul

Allan, Richard

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Greenway, John

Arbuthnot, rh James

Griffiths Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Griffiths Win (Bridgend)

Bailey, Adrian

Grogan, John

Barker, Gregory

Hague, rh William

Barnes, Harry

Hain, rh Peter

Barrett, John

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Bayley, Hugh

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Hancock, Mike

Bell, Sir Stuart

Hanson David

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Berry, Roger

Betts, Clive

Harvey, Nick

Blizzard, Bob

Hawkins, Nick

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Heald, Oliver

Bradshaw, Ben

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Hendrick, Mark

Heppell John

Bryant, Chris

Hermon, Lady

Burden, Richard

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Burnside, David

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Burstow, Paul

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Byers, rh Stephen

Cairns, David

Hughes Simon (Southwark N)

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

Iddon, Dr Brian

lllsley Eric

Carmichael, Alistair

Jackson, (Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Challen, Colin

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Jamieson David

Jenkins Brian

Chidgey, David

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Coaker, Vernon

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Coffey, Ms Ann

Keeble, Ms Sally

Cohen, Harry

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Conway, Derek

Keetch, Paul

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Cotter, Brian

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Cranston, Ross

Khabra, Piara S.

Cruddas, Jon

Kidney, David

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

David, Wayne

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Lamb, Norman

Dean, Mrs Janet

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Denham, rh John

Lazarowicz, Mark

Dismore, Andrew

Linton, Martin

Djanogly, Jonathan

Llwyd, Elfyn

Doughty, Sue

Loughton Tim

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Love, Andrew

Drew, David (Stroud)

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Drown, Ms Julia

Luke. lain (Dundee E)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McAvoy, Thomas

Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

McFall, John

Edwards, Huw

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

McIsaac, Shona

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Mackay, rh Andrew

Foster, Don (Bath)

McKechin, Ann

Francois, Mark

Mackinlay, Andrew

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Maclean, rh David

460

McLoughlin, Patrick

Selous, Andrew

McWilliam, John

Shaw, Jonathan

Mallaber, Judy

Simon, Siôn (B 'ham Erdington)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Maples, John

Skinner, Dennis

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Martlew, Eric

Soley, Clive

May, Mrs Theresa

Spring, Richard

Merron, Gillian

Steen, Anthony

Moore, Michael

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Morgan, Julie

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Morley, Elliot

Stunell, Andrew

Munn, Ms Meg

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Swayne, Desmond

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Thurso, John

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Tipping, Paddy

O'Hara, Edward

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Organ, Diana

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Pickles, Eric

Tyrie, Andrew

Pickthall Colin

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Plaskitt, James

Ward, Claire

Pollard Kerry

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Weir, Michael

Whittingdale, John

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Willetts, David

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Prisk Mark (Hertford)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Prosser, Gwyn

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Pugh, Dr. John

Willis Phil

Quinn, Lawrie

Wilshire, David

Randall, John

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Woolas, Phil

Worthington, Tony

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wyatt, Derek

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Sanders, Adrian

Tellers for the Noes:

Sarwar, Mohammad

Paul Clark and

Sedgemore, Brian

Charlotte Atkins

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may not be aware that during the Division, Whips from both sides of the House were seeking to organise, instruct and guide Members on how to vote. As I thought that we had already established that this was strictly a House of Commons matter, is there anything you can do, Mr. Speaker, to protect innocent MPs from being badgered by Government and Opposition Whips on a House of Commons matter? Surely, something must be done to protect the House and its Members from such gratuitous intervention.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin rose—
Mr. Speaker: Let me reply to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
The right hon. Gentleman is right: it is a House of Commons matter, but Whips like to tell people what to do—that is the nature of the beast. I can assure him that they were acting in a private capacity.
Mr. McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you think that, as one of the intentions of

461
the vote was to ensure that the debate gets no publicity at all, had we moved to sit in private it would have got more publicity?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may have a point.
Sir Menzies Campbell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If Whips were acting in a personal capacity, should that not result in a deduction of one day's salary in respect of all those who receive public funds?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. When I was in engineering, there was a practice called quartering workers—but that was not a day's salary.
Mrs. Browning: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was acting as a Whip in a personal capacity, so does that mean I will get paid?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: Further to the serious and genuine point of order made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), Mr. Speaker. When I voted in the No Lobby, two Government Whips were at the desk telling us when the next votes were likely to be. In such circumstances, it is important that, when the Leader of the House moves the motion, he again assures us that the vote is genuinely free—I did not have that impression when I was going through the Lobby.
Mr. Speaker: Not even I know when the next vote is likely to be, so perhaps a Whip will tell me, as I shall have to come back to the Chair.

Security Screen
1.48 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): I beg to move,
That this House approves the installation of a permanent security screen between the Chamber and the Strangers' Gallery.
Mr. Speaker: I reiterate that I have agreed that both amendments will be considered.
Mr. Hain: First, I shall respond to some of the points that have been made. I confirm that copies of an explanatory memorandum are available in the Vote Office; it includes a photograph showing what the new permanent screen would look like, and I think that Members will find it unobtrusive. I assure the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) that the vote will genuinely be a free one, and there is no Government policy on the matter.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): Tell your Whips.
Mr. Hain: The orderly business of the House, in the event of a surprise motion such as the one that was moved earlier, is a different matter.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I hope that the Leader of the House is not going to suggest that the piece of paper available from the Vote Office provides a basis for a proper discussion in the House. It contains a description of the visual impact, ventilation and acoustics, and some poor-quality pictures, but it is not fair to suggest that it is a basis on which we can assess the nature of the risk that precipitated advice from the security services and warranted extraordinarily swift action by the Leader of the House and the Commission in advance of a debate in the House. The public need to know that we do not have the information before us. That document is not information.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman may not think that the information is adequate, but to say that it is not information is simply incorrect. I think that the pictures are rather good, and show the situation quite clearly.
Mr. Howarth rose—
Mr. Hain: No, I shall not take any more interventions, as I should like to explain the background. The hon. Gentleman may find that helpful in understanding the seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves.
Two motions on House business are before us this afternoon. The first deals with security, and the second, which will be moved by my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House. deals with the welcome that we give our visitors. For the first time, there will be a proper reception facility that makes our visitors feel at home in their Parliament.
The temporary security screen that Members can see at the front of Strangers Gallery has been installed with the agreement of the House of Commons Commission in the light of clear security advice at the highest level. The House will appreciate that it is difficult to debate

463
that advice in a way that does not endanger our security, but I can give the factors that did not contribute to the decision. The decision was not made to shield the House from the protest shouts that we have experienced from time to time, most recently over Iraq, which can still be heard through the glass. To those who say that the screen is about protecting senior Ministers, I point out that the Prime Minister and other individuals are already subject to extensive security protection.
The installation of the screen is about protecting the whole Chamber—the very centre of our democracy—from terrorist attack. Terrorists use a range of weapons undreamt of a few years ago, many of which are not always apparent or easily detected, and we have to respond to that changed threat. We cherish the accessible relationship that we enjoy with our electors, which is a vital part of our democratic life. Indeed, we are reinforcing it with the better reception facilities that are the subject of the second motion. Over the years, however, we have had to introduce successive security procedures, including searches on entry and, more recently, armed police guards. None of those measures was subject to the formal approval of the House, but the present measure rightly is.
Acting on clear intelligence, which she explained to me, the director general of the Security Service made an unequivocal recommendation that the screen be installed. I felt that I had a duty to bring that matter to you, Mr. Speaker, and to fellow members of the House of Commons Commission. The House would expect no less. Commission members received the same background and recommendations from the director general and considered the matter in great detail and at great length, as did the Serjeant at Arms. Consultations were held on Privy Council terms with senior Members of the House. This was not, I stress, a decision lightly taken.
Mr. Siôn Simon: Instead of installing a screen, why do we not take guns from people before they come in?
Mr. Hain: Guns would already be taken from visitors under the normal security procedures. It is not possible to bring a gun into the Chamber or the House—at least, not without a serious breach of security—as security procedures are in place. We are talking not about guns but about other terrorist threats to our security.
Mr. Nigel Evans: What consultation has the Leader of the House had with other Parliaments? I remember that there was a shooting once in the Spanish Parliament in Madrid, but I do not believe that there is a screen there. I do not believe that the United States Congress has a glass screen either.
Mr. Hain: Congress, I believe, and certainly Capitol hill, were recently subject to serious anthrax attack. When the hon. Gentleman hears what I am about to say,
464
he will understand that that is the sort of thing that is involved. He will know that the Dail has a security screen.
Mr. Mackay: It is the only one with a screen.
Mr. Hain: That may well be the case, but let us make some progress—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Leader of the House of the House speak. Members will have an opportunity to rebut his argument later.
Mr. Hain: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Claire Ward: I understand that the risk is not so much from guns being brought into the Strangers Gallery but from chemical or biological weapons, as I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree. Can he explain how we would increase security if we cannot stop somebody bringing chemical weapons into the Parliament building? The screen may prevent people from throwing things from the Gallery into the Chamber, but if our security outside the Chamber is not sufficient, it will not prevent them from using them anywhere else in the building. In addition to putting up a security screen what is being done to increase and improve security in the rest of Parliament?
Mr. Hain: It is to address such matters that, as I shall explain, a major comprehensive security review will shortly be carried out by the security services and the Metropolitan police commissioner. The fact that everything cannot be addressed at the same time does not mean that we should not reduce the risk in the Chamber, the heart of our democracy. I shall explain in a moment how progress has been made on that issue, but first I must make it clear that I did not consult the Prime Minister or the Cabinet on the decision. This was, and still is, a matter for the House, not the Government.
I regret the need for the screen, but I believe that it is necessary and in the best interests of our democracy. To ignore the advice that we received would have been irresponsible, putting at risk not only Members but our staff, visitors and the very functioning of our parliamentary democracy. I congratulate those responsible for installing and overseeing installation of the temporary screen over the Easter recess. Its swift and efficient installation has meant that we have been able to maintain, unbroken, our cherished tradition of public access to our proceedings.
Judy Mallaber: One of my worries about access concerns the increasing difficulty of arranging tours for our constituents, given the changes in sitting hours, which I support. One proposal was to fit a glass window at the back of the Gallery so that it would be easier for people just to walk through. Will the proposals for a screen at the front of the Gallery for security reasons mean that we are no longer able to look at other proposals for increasing access for our constituents so that they can come and view us in the Chamber?
Mr. Hain: No, not at all. On Monday, I went up to the Gallery to look out from behind the screen and see the

465
view that visitors will have. I pursued with House officials the question of whether it would indeed be possible to return to the matter, and I was satisfied that it would be. Arguably, it would be easier to return to the original proposal, which was considered a year or so ago, but not taken up. My hon. Friend is welcome to pursue the matter, and I am certainly willing to look at it again.
I hope and believe that Members and visitors alike will find the temporary structure unobtrusive. On Monday, I sat in Strangers Gallery behind the screen. The view is clear and the sound very good. Indeed, I am advised that it is better than before. While the screen is functional, however, it cannot be said to be fully in keeping with the architecture of the Chamber, and its permanent replacement will meet much better the concerns of those responsible for our architectural heritage. As I have said, an explanatory memorandum is available in the Vote Office showing clearly what the permanent structure will look like. In the event of a positive vote this afternoon, it is planned that work will take place in summer 2005.
Jim Knight: I am interested to learn that my right hon. Friend sat in Strangers Gallery behind the screen this week. Yesterday, a guest of mine attended Prime Minister's questions, and he told me that the sound feed filters out all the extraneous noise that many people enjoy—some of us may be ashamed of it—and which is a feature of the occasion. Has my right hon. Friend considered how we can reflect the atmosphere of the House for people in Strangers Gallery if an acoustic barrier has been created by the screen?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is one of the issues that we will seek to address in the event of a permanent screen being agreed. We needed—I will explain why—to put up a temporary screen quickly, or else we would have advertised the problem before we had provided security protection for the House. I believe that people will understand that.
Richard Younger-Ross: The Leader of the House mentioned architectural merit. The photographs show a very modern screen. If he wants something that fits the character of the House, should we not go back to the sort of screen that existed before 1948—before the bombing—at the Ladies Gallery end, which was a grille that no one could see through?
Mr. Hain: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is making a serious suggestion. The point of the proposition is to provide a screen that does not impair sight or the experience of being a visitor to the Chamber. I think he will find that it will do that.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I much regret the necessity for the screen, but if that is the advice that we are given, we must follow it. Will the Leader of the House deal with access to the east and west Special Galleries? The present screen covers only the Strangers area, but the Special Galleries are not covered. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us how those areas will still be accessible by Members' guests.
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and seeking clarification. It may be
466
convenient for me to deal with it now. Access to the Special Gallery will still be available to Members, who will be able to seek tickets for two guests from the Serjeant in the normal way. What will be different is that although an application to the Serjeant may still be made in the usual way, Members will be required to testify that guests are known to them personally and that they vouch for the conduct of such guests. In the event of such conduct being unacceptable, Members will have to answer to the House for it. The procedures have been changed, the tickets look rather different, and the extra protection about which the hon. Gentleman sought clarification is operating.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hain: I will take one more question on that point, but I must make progress or Members in all parts of the House will not have the full picture revealed to them in order to debate it.
Mr. Eric Forth: When the Leader of the House says that Members can authorise people to come in front of the screen, will that be only Members who have taken the Oath?
Mr. Hain: I assume so. I will take advice on that and come back to the right hon. Gentleman. Since the Speaker is nodding to help me out, I think the right hon. Gentleman has the answer to his question.
David Burnside: Further to that point, can the Leader of the House confirm my information that the only serious breach in the Palace of Westminster took place before the 1979 general election, resulting in the death of the right hon. Member for Abingdon, the late Airey Neave? That involved the misuse of an officially registered security pass to gain access to the Palace of Westminster. Will the Leader of the House give some time in his statement to the procedures that will be tightened up for the issuing of security passes, given that those who receive such passes do not go through the security screen on the perimeter of the Palace of Westminster?
Mr. Hain: I will, indeed. That will be the subject of the wide-ranging security review that the Speaker has ordered, with my support and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind the hon. Gentleman that 12,900 security passes are issued in the Palace of Westminster, excluding Members and Peers, so it is an issue.
May I make a minor correction, or a major one, to his point? The murder of Airey Neave was not the only breach of security. In 1970, a CS gas canister was thrown into the Chamber, requiring evacuation. We have moved on, as I will explain shortly, to a different level of terrorist threat, which is not necessarily as visible as a CS gas canister. We saw what happened in 1970. The procedures put in place, with airport-type security checks before one can enter the Palace, are intended to prevent such incidents, but we face a different problem in the case of terrorist weapons that are not so visible.
There will be Members who question the value for money of both temporary and permanent structures. The temporary structure has cost £600,000; the

467
proposed permanent structure £1.3 million. I appreciate that that will seem a considerable sum to our constituents, but I believe it is money that must be spent. There are many constraints on carrying out major works in the Palace.
Although the debate focuses on the security of the Chamber, the screen is only one element of heightened security precautions throughout the parliamentary estate. As I said, a thorough review of security is also being carried out by the security services and the Metropolitan police.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hain: I will make a little progress, then I will give way.
We must not forget our responsibility towards everybody who works here. This is a high priority for the House administration, and detailed security advice is being given to all House staff, together with briefings for Members and Members' staff. I stress that the security screen has been installed following the unanimous decision of the House of Commons Commission, with the support of the informal joint committee on security—an all-party decision. This is a House matter, I repeat, not a party or Government matter. The defence of Parliament against terrorist threat is not a party matter, but one that we must all have regard to.
Chris Bryant: Immediately after 11 September, a group of children from my constituency was due to come down to visit Parliament. Their parents were so nervous about the security aspects for their children—not about my security, but about their children's security when they came here—that they decided to cancel the trip. When we are putting together security measures, is it not just as important to consider the security of members of the public who come into the building? It is one of the postcard buildings that are most dangerous.
Mr. Hain: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Does the Leader of the House agree that this is the appropriate time in the ongoing review of the security of the Palace of Westminster to address once and for all the ownership of Parliament square, and to look to ways of bringing that within the parliamentary estate and the world heritage site? It is my contention and that of others that one cannot properly secure what is inside if one has not secured what is outside.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The matter has been discussed with the Security Service—I myself have discussed it—and it will no doubt form an important part of the review.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Can the Leader of the House explain why there is no need for a security screen in the Chamber of the House of Lords?
Mr. Hain: I do not know that that will always be the case, but the Security Service did not recommend a
468
screen in the House of Lords. [Interruption.] Let me be frank, as I have been throughout the debate. The hon. Gentleman asked an important question; I will give him an important answer. Security in the House of Lords is being tightened, and the whole parliamentary estate is the subject of the joint review by the security services and Metropolitan police commissioner that are now being undertaken. When I explain the situation, the hon. Gentleman will see why we have taken the course we have, if I may be allowed to complete my points.
I had hoped to address the House in general terms, as I have just done. But the amendments leave me with no alternative but to be much more specific about the consequences if they were passed. The Security Service recommendation for a screen is based on an analysis of the threat vulnerability and the impact of possible chemical or biological attack in the Strangers Gallery. In recent years there have been several indicators that al-Qaeda and associated networks have shown the intent and capability to mount attacks using toxic chemical and biological materials. Using such materials in confined spaces is a good way of maximising impact.
If we want a House open to the public, as I do, we have to follow all reasonable security procedures. No security procedure is infallible—we saw that with the Greenpeace protest only last month. The real issue is reducing risks and taking sensible precautions where we can. If right hon. or hon. Members wish to ignore the unequivocal recommendation and advice of the security services, that is a matter for them, but there will be consequences for all who take that view. There will be consequences not only for Members of this House, but for the Doorkeepers and security staff who serve the Chamber and civil servants in the Box. [Interruption.] We are all subject to the same air system. There will also be consequences for Clerks and visitors to the Gallery. This is a matter not only of self-protection, but of protecting all those in the Chamber, whether or not they are Members.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: As to additional security for our visitors, the risk to the people sitting behind the screen is immeasurably heightened by the fact that it is there, rather than otherwise.
Mr. Hain: If the purpose of an al-Qaeda cell was to throw a phial into the Chamber in Question Time, for example, when those on both Front Benches are present every week at a predictable, advertised time, what would be the point of going into the Strangers Gallery and throwing it among people there? There would be no point at all in doing that, so that is an absurd point, if I may say so.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: We are discussing a serious matter, and I do not want the debate to become heated. In talking about chemical and biological agents, did the security services advise the Leader of the House that the problem with such agents, as people have known since attempts were made to use gas in the trenches in the first world war, is dissemination to the target? If somebody dropped a chemical or biological agent down on the Floor of the House, it might or might not kill somebody. Such agents

469
cannot be disseminated easily as they disseminate through air currents, and that is the way in which such things are done.
Mr. Hain: I do wonder at some of the questions that I have been asked.
Let me spell out in the plainest terms what the consequences would be if the House decided to support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). If an al-Qaeda group managed to throw a phial of anthrax or ricin into the Chamber or, even worse, if a suicide agent released the substance without anybody noticing—we have been advised that that is quite feasible—the particles would
immediately begin spreading throughout the Chamber. Because of the way in which air flows work, total contamination could occur within minutes. Decontamination procedures would then be activated. [Interruption.] I have heard the same shouts as everybody else. Everybody—not only Members—would be locked in and decontaminated before being allowed to leave.
It is for hon. Members to decide whether they are prepared to take that risk. I am not, the Speaker is not and the House of Commons Commission is not, and the House must now decide whether it is. I commend the motion to the House.
2.13 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: As you know, Mr. Speaker, members of the House of Commons Commission support the motion moved by the Leader of the House. However, for myself and hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches, this House of Commons matter is subject to the usual free vote, so my views are my own and are to be taken as such.
By far the most important concern of the House of Commons Commission in the relatively short time for which I have been a member has been the safety of this centre of our democracy, the people who work here and visitors to Parliament. We all have a duty to ensure that our free democracy can continue to function as it should by allowing the public proper access, but at the same time we have other duties. It is important that we make it as hard as possible for terrorists to fulfil their objectives, that we protect the thousands of people who work here, and that we do our best to support the reasonable requests of those who do so much to keep us safe.
There is a tension between the needs of security and the openness of a free Parliament, and recent events have made that tension greater. I warmly welcome, and I supported and pressed for, the thoroughgoing review of security throughout the parliamentary estate that is being carried out by the Security Service and the Metropolitan police with the personal backing of the director general and the commissioner, and I hope that it will be completed very quickly.
I am grateful to a number of my hon. Friends who have brought to me wide-ranging security issues relating to this building and the way in which we do our business. They include issues to do with passes and so on. I have
470
written to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Leader of the House, setting out all the concerns so that they can be taken into account in the review.
Mr. James Gray: All of us in this Chamber and elsewhere are entirely with my hon. Friend in seeking maximum security for people who work here and for our visitors. No one denies that that is correct. What the Leader of the House failed to do, however, is explain even once why on earth that enormously expensive white elephant of a screen improves that situation even one jot. Will my hon. Friend kindly tell us not that we want people to be safer, but why that screen will make them safer?
Mr. Heald: I think that three factors together pose the great risk, and the screen is a measure—it is a limited one, and it is not the only one that will be needed—that addresses them. First, nowadays, weapons are available that were not previously available, including powders and gases that are not as easy to detect as other weapons on coming into the House. Secondly, whereas for many years terrorists and those who were a threat would act with their own safety taken into account, that is not the case nowadays. There are suicide bombers, and the amount of time available to deal with such a threat is minimal. Thirdly, we are one of the very few Parliaments that has a predictable pattern of behaviour—[Interruption.] We may not be predictable on every issue, but we have an agenda, week after week—
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: And a timetable.
Mr. Heald: Indeed, but do not mention programming.
Obviously, we have questions to the Prime Minister every week, but there are quite a lot of other occasions that are very predictable. Taking the three factors together, it seems to me that there could be a very high risk. Rather than taking my word for it, let us bear in mind the fact that we were able to cross-examine the head of the Security Service at great length about these issues, as were many senior colleagues in this place. She convinced me that there was a very serious threat, and many colleagues reached the same view.
Mr. Mackay: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Heald: Before I give way to my right hon. Friend, I say to him that he was offered that opportunity, and I think that it is a great pity that he was not able to take it up.
Mr. Mackay: I was on parliamentary business abroad, so there was a perfectly good reason why I did not attend.
My hon. Friend was uncharacteristically evasive in responding to the perfectly reasonable questions of our hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said earlier that we had a huge responsibility— of course we do—to the thousands of people who come here, including staff, but neither he nor the Leader of the House has explained why that

471
wretched screen and its possible successor will help those people. All that they are doing is cutting us off from the people whom we represent, which is quite wrong. Will he now try to have a second go?
Mr. Heald: I should like, I hope in a pleasant and respectful way, to correct my right hon. Friend on one point: our guests will be able to go into the Galleries in front of the screen. However, hon. Members will be subject to the new regime that has been described by the Leader of the House.
The point that I wish to make about safety in the Strangers Gallery is very straightforward. If a member of a terrorist organisation were looking for a target, they might think that they could aim at a good one by trying to hit the Government, the alternative Government and the outside-chance Government all in one go. The average terrorist would not think it much of a ploy to throw a chemical agent on himself and innocent visitors.
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con): My hon. Friend knows that I support the security measures. The debate is very frank, so I imagine that some of members of the public sitting behind the screen must feel pretty uncomfortable. We have a duty to improve security, and, given the comments of the Leader of the House about the overall review, I hope that resources will not be a problem. Resources to protect the House at weekends and on non-sitting days are already a concern, not least because of the recent incursion on the clock tower. I hope that my hon. Friend will support a thorough review from the Front Bench, so that the people who sit behind the screen do not feel that it is a division of the sheep and the goats.
Mr. Heald: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend has detailed knowledge of those matters from her time as shadow Leader of the House, and I included points that she raised with me in my letter about the review to Mr. Speaker. We must take all necessary measures to keep this place open to the public. so that they can see their democracy in action, but at the same time we must not give terrorists the opportunity to hit one of the most important political and democratic institutions in the world.
Chris Bryant: The shadow Leader of the House is generous in giving way. If we took down the screen, we would effectively issue an invitation to terrorists such as al-Qaeda to use the precise practices that we are discussing.
Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his customary way.
Mr. Swire: Does my hon. Friend know whether the security review will extend without this Chamber and into the Committee Rooms? The meetings of Select Committees, Statutory Instrument Committees and so forth are not only well advertised but open to members of the public. From time to time, those Rooms contain quite a selection of parliamentarians and staff. What protective measures will be taken in Westminster Hall and all the Committee Rooms in this House, and in Portcullis House?
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend reinforces a good point that he made earlier. We must examine not only this
472
Chamber, but every part of the parliamentary estate. His advice about examining vantage points outside the parliamentary estate that may pose a threat is sensible and wise. He has mentioned that point to me before, and I included it in my correspondence with Mr. Speaker and the Leader of the House.
David Burnside: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Heald: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have given way a great deal. I know that many hon. Members want to speak, and I want to give them an opportunity to do so.
We have the screen not because hon. Members want to be protected; it is a response to a clear threat to the principal institution of our democracy. It is not a single response to the threat, and security is rightly being increased elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster and other parliamentary buildings. Even as the review continues, we should make any necessary changes to enhance security.
David Burnside: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Heald: In a moment
The Leader of the House mentioned a welcome measure to improve pass security. If one applies to the Serjeant at Arms for a ticket to the Under Gallery and there is space, the Serjeant at Arms requires a signed statement that one knows the guest and that one vouches for them personally, and I also welcome that change.
David Burnside: Does my hon. Friend agree that terrorists act for political reasons? One of the consequences of the screen is that terrorists may affect the outcome of an election—the recent attack in Madrid was carried out for political reasons to make a political impact. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that we should set up physical barriers between the Government and the Opposition, who are potentially the next Government, in an election campaign? If there were physical barriers between the Government and the Opposition, there would be no public meetings, and my hon. Friend is embarking on that route.
Mr. Heald: This example is slightly different, but it contains many of the same issues: I remember going to Conservative party conferences in the days before heavy security, and it was marvellous to have free interplay with others, which we cannot achieve now. After the 1984 bombing, it was right to introduce security measures, but party conferences still take place. I would be one of the last people to interfere with the traditional operation of our democracy. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House agrees.
As far as elections are concerned, we must take the necessary risks in order to go out and do what we do in our democracy, but we should not take unnecessary risks in circumstances that do not really stop us from doing what we do as politicians.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Heald: I know that many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, and I do not want to use all the time.

473
Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm in his winding-up speech that, although permission for a permanent screen is being sought, if the security situation changes, that decision is not irrevocable, the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee will continue to monitor the situation, and he will take a close, personal interest in the matter?
Mr. Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend and the Leader of the House have not explained why we should not vote for the amendment; will my hon. Friend kindly do so?
Mr. Heald: The threat is immediate, and we need the screen now. We can debate whether the screen should be made permanent, but the amendment does not address that point.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Leader of the House made the staggering comment that 12,500 people hold passes for this place, excluding Members of Parliament and peers. Those people are subject to minimal security checks when they enter this place, and it would be easy for somebody to steal one of those passes. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, will my hon. Friend raise that point as part of the general security review?
Mr. Heald: That point is strong and important. Pass security should be tighter, and the matter is being addressed even before the review is completed. I would not choose to change this building unless I thought it necessary, but sadly I do.
2.28 pm
Sir Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the shadow Leader of the House.
I have just returned from the United States, where I visited ground zero in New York earlier this week. The people in New York are not maudlin and looking backwards, and they are getting on with their lives. One of my friends was involved in the Lockerbie disaster, and another was in the World Trade Centre when it was destroyed—my first friend died; my second friend got out of the World Trade Centre. I have visited both the garden of remembrance in Lockerbie and ground zero, but I am not taking a maudlin look back at the events of 11 September.
When I was in the United States, the big issue was a commission of inquiry to look into how it came about that aeroplanes could be flown into the World Trade Centre, killing 2,800 people, leaving thousands of other people with their lives permanently destroyed, and leaving surviving dependents asking a number of questions. How had this come about? Could it have been prevented? Who knew what? That commission is so important that it obliged the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to come before it to answer questions about what she knew, and in the week ahead the President and Vice-President of the United States will be asked what they knew. The relatives and dependents of
474
those who died, who are there to listen to the proceedings, ask: what could have been done to save our own? It has been argued that a 16-year-old student with hindsight is a greater man than the President of the United States. Today, we are able to ensure that there is no need for hindsight by avoiding an untoward event.
Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Stuart Bell: I should like to get on a little.
Of course no one wishes to separate us from our constituents, but we have to take into account the reality of the world in which we live. We know that we are unable to defend every installation in the country, but we are able to seek to defend what we used to call, and should still call, the mother of Parliaments. This is the essence of our democracy, known and recognisable in every country of the world. The objective of global-reach terrorism is to attack and destroy democracy. To have an untoward and unhappy event here, successful or otherwise, would not only taint our democracy, but the principle of democracy throughout the world.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Stuart Bell: No.
As the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House said, a thorough-going investigation of the entire parliamentary estate will include Committee Rooms, passes and security at every level, and will be taken with the utmost seriousness. Nevertheless, we have to keep our eye on the ball and stay focused. At Pearl harbour, the Americans lost all their combat aircraft because they were lined up so as to defend them against sabotage from Japanese on the island, but they were of course destroyed from the air. This is not about separating ourselves from the people who wish to see us, but about protecting this democracy of ours. We make this major decision in the interests not only of our democracy, but of our successors. No Parliament binds its successors, but the decisions that we make—
Mr. Colin Challen rose—
Mr.Grayrose—
Sir Stuart Bell: Let me just finish this point. We are talking about whether and how we can protect future generations of Members of Parliament, future Governments and future Oppositions.
Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman of the view that when this Chamber was destroyed during the second world war, British democracy was irreparably damaged?
Sir Stuart Bell: This Chamber was destroyed in what was clearly a war. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should be subject to a biological attack and see our Members and staff destroyed.
Mr. Gray: We would sit in Church house.
Sir Stuart Bell: That is a remarkable comment. Having been in this House for 22 years, I am struck by

475
the frivolity of some of the questions that were put to the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House. I wish to keep this debate on a serious level by discussing how we are able to protect our people, our Members of Parliament and our Government from the kind of attacks that we are seeing worldwide. I could bring a map before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which shows terrorism with its global reach in all the countries of the world—even in Saudi Arabia, which is not a democracy as we understand it. These terrorists are no respecters of persons. To attack and destroy this House would be a major gain for them and a massive blow to our democracy and to democracies around the world.
Mr. Challen: In talking about this Chamber, does my hon. Friend envisage that this siege-like situation will continue in perpetuity? He did not cite examples of any other Chambers that have fallen prey to the particular kind of attack that appears to be envisaged here. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for us to consider these measures after the sarin gas attacks on the underground in Japan.
Sir Stuart Bell: We are talking about the threat of an imminent and serious attack. I make this speech as a member of the House of Commons Commission, where I have met, with other members, the head of our security services and the head of our Metropolitan police. Through the Speaker, we issued an invitation to all Privy Councillors to come and listen to what they had to say.
As for other Parliaments, two weeks ago I was in the National Assembly in Paris: there are the most stringent regulations for getting into that building.
Mr. Gray: There is no screen there.
Sir Stuart Bell: It might happen. I have been in the Dail and saw no difficulty in its proceedings.
We are talking about how, through this investigation and analysis of the parliamentary estate, we protect our democracy, right hon. and hon. Members of Parliament, and staff—everyone in this building.
Mrs. Browning: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is not like a bombing in world war two. I have just taken at random an item from my handbag, compliments of Estee Lauder—one of several that I could have picked out. This would not have been removed from me, even with the most detailed screening of my handbag, but it could contain anything sufficient to kill everybody in this Chamber and in the Galleries. As a former member of the Commission of this House, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is its duty to listen to the expert advice that it is given and to implement it.
Sir Stuart Bell: I take the hon. Lady's point. There is no mechanism or screening procedure that finds chemical and biological weapons. Nothing in this world could have prevented the anthrax being taken into Washington—no such machine is available.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews rose—
Sir Stuart Bell: My hon. and learned Friend, who is about to intervene, would face an interesting situation in
476
years to come if there were to be an untoward event in this Chamber followed by a commission of inquiry to ask who was responsible. He would not be the Queen's Counsel on that commission, because he would have to disqualify himself on the grounds of the early-day motion that he has tabled. As the Leader of the House said, it is a matter for each and every one of us to take our responsibilities seriously this afternoon—not to spend our time trying to make various points, but to focus on the matter that is before us.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are many targets in this place and that many of us are at risk? Our visitors are at risk because they are part of the democratic process, and an attack on them would be an attack on the democratic process. We, too, are at risk; but if we protect ourselves, we increase, by a direct algebraic equation, the risk to them. Those people up there have absolutely none of the protection that we have arrogated to ourselves. That is an extremely offensive way in which to deal with our people.
Sir Stuart Bell: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the attacks of global-reach terrorism on democracy are attacks on us all and that we all may be subject to terrorist attack by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We have talked about the parliamentary estate and commission of inquiry that we shall hold, with a full investigation of how we can protect people who wish to visit. However, we must consider how we can protect Government and Opposition Members and Members of Parliament generally. We are here to make decisions about how to protect not a future Wembley stadium, but the House—
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Us.
Sir Stuart Bell: How can my hon. and learned Friend be so selfish as to sit here talking about himself? We are talking about other Members of Parliament and their families—those who might be left behind. How selfish can one get?
Mr. Simon: Are not we saying to people, "You can't throw a bag of anthrax on us, but you're welcome to come into Central Lobby and swing it around and kill as many Back Benchers as you like"?
Mr. Hain: The air supply is the same.
Mr. Simon: A screen does not work if the air supply is the same. It is pointless.
Sir Stuart Bell: No one in his right mind wishes anyone to come into the building with anthrax and murder anyone. As I said earlier, a full inquiry will cover the entire parliamentary estate, including the House of Lords. The Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House also made that point.
We must not confuse concepts. We are here today to decide whether there should be a permanent screen—I emphasise again that no Parliament binds its successors—to protect us and our democracy. Of course, I respect and wish to protect members of the public who come here at this time, and there are other

477
means of being in touch with constituents, such as by letter, fax, e-mail and television, which anyone in the country can see.
Mr. Mackay: The hon. Gentleman stated that there is no way that security can spot anthrax and related weapons of mass destruction. If that is the case, terrorists could go to Central Lobby, Portcullis House and elsewhere and use them. The Leader of the House has told us that the air system flows through the House and we would thus all be at risk. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) must therefore be right that the only purpose of the screen is to protect us. There is no other sensible reason for it.
Sir Stuart Bell: We are protecting not us but our democracy, our Government, our Opposition and our image as the mother of Parliaments to which other Parliaments look up and other democracies aspire. We are looking to prevent a victory for terrorism that would be perceived as such worldwide. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) says that the screen is an obstruction to or erosion of the relationship between our constituents and us and a victory for criminal terrorist organisations. He considers raising a screen a victory for terrorism. That is remarkable. What would be a greater victory for terrorism than the sort of untoward event that decimates Parliament, kills many innocent people and leaves grieving widows, widowers and children? How can concepts be confused to such an extent?
Derek Conway: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's points but some of the interventions suggest that some hon. Members appear to believe that we are holding a debate about protecting Members of Parliament. However, they are not protected when they step outside the Gates. We are debating the protection not of individual Members of Parliament, Ministers or shadow Ministers but of the House when it sits. Which other Assembly meets so regularly, with the Government, the alternative Government and the legislature in one place? Those who go on about protecting Members of Parliament do not even understand the subject of the debate.
Sir Stuart Bell: I need no lessons from anyone about the way in which Members of Parliament can be exposed. I have been attacked twice in my surgeries. One Member of Parliament was seriously wounded and the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), who made a pertinent point earlier, will remember that a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament was assassinated. Members of Parliament understand the risk. The screen was not put up for my benefit—I never said that it was. It is there to protect our Parliament, our democracy and the concept of democracy. Hon. Members should understand that.
The House should support the motion, reject the amendments and thus make a clear statement that we take terrorism seriously in relation to our Parliament and Members of Parliament, of whatever party, and that we will not provide a hostage to fortune that could
478
be shown throughout the world as an example of the way in which democracy can be denigrated and destroyed.
2.45 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I beg to move amendment (a), in line 1, leave out "approves" and insert "declines to approve".
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, we may take amendment (b), in line 2, at end add
"until the efficacy of the temporary screen has been assessed and until a comprehensive assessment of the appropriate access of constituents to Parliament has been approved by the House."
Mr. Tyler: Several hon. Members who have contributed, including the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), do not appear to have read the modest, cross-party amendments that I move on behalf of senior colleagues.
I have genuine sympathy for the Leader of the House and the Commission because they clearly have a difficult dilemma. We should all recognise that and take seriously the advice that they—and through them, the House—have been given. I accept that there is a dilemma and that a balance must be struck—I hope that all hon. Members accept that. However, I hope that hon. Members also agree that the amendments constitute a reasonable method of dealing with the issue.
The amendments do not say, "Let's take down the temporary screen." That is an illusion that renders the majority of the preceding speech irrelevant to the amendments. The amendments make it clear that, by not agreeing to a permanent screen, we make it conditional on precisely the comprehensive analysis of the position that the Leader of the House and shadow Leader of the House believe to be so important. I am sure that we all agree with that. Clearly, it is absurd to consider in isolation a specific part of the parliamentary estate instead of examining carefully the estate as whole.
Hon. Members of all parties have made points on behalf of those who visit us, the staff whom the House employs and our staff. The risks that they take are not mentioned on the Order Paper. The screen will not help them. Indeed, if it deflects attention from the genuinely urgent issue of screening people who come into the parliamentary estate. we do them a disservice and put them at greater risk. It is important that those who believe that we must take a comprehensive view of the security of all the buildings understand that the screen could divert attention from what is genuinely important.
Mr. Hain: I note the serious and logical way in which the hon. Gentleman makes his case. However, if he were standing in my shoes, and the director general of the Security Service had approached him last year to say that her recommendation, based on intelligence, was to erect a screen in the Chamber, would he have said no to her? That is the decision that the House of Commons Commission and I had to make. [Interruption.] It is not a question of doing what we are told but taking serious advice from the director general of MI5, who hourly combats a terrorist threat from al-Qaeda. She said that the best way in which to protect the House was to erect a screen because the Chamber is a target.
Mr. Tyler: The motion relates to a permanent screen. The amendment deals with the way in which we assess

479
the necessity for a permanent screen. "I can do no other", as they say—the temporary screen is a fait accompli. This afternoon, we must decide whether we say yes to a permanent screen without a proper assessment of the present screen's efficacy. That is what is on the Order Paper, and that is the question that I am addressing.
I want specifically to deal with a point that the Leader of the House failed to address when he was asked in what way the temporary screen was inadequate. His only answer was that it was aesthetically inadequate: he did not like the look of it. That is an absurd argument. Indeed, if we are talking about a deterrent, this screen is potentially more effective, because it is a more visible barrier, than what is described in the explanatory memorandum. It is important that we distinguish between saying yea or nay to the temporary screen—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members take a different view on this. After just four days' experience of the temporary screen in the Chamber, we are being asked this afternoon to say yes to a permanent one. There are a number of reasons why I believe that that would be wrong.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has made a specific point on which I might be able to help him. A permanent screen would provide a large number of benefits. They range from non-security issues, such as the fact that it would have non-reflective glass—we would not, therefore, have the effect that we see now from the Chamber—and that it would be less visually intrusive even than this relatively modestly intrusive one, to the fact that it would be more secure. The recommendation from the Security Service was for a permanent screen. The director general said that it was a matter for the House how it handled this decision. she was not seeking to influence that. We took the decision that it was right to have a debate of this kind, but she would have preferred it had we just gone ahead and erected a permanent screen without a debate. She sees even this debate as a risk to the House.
Let us be clear about the seriousness of the situation that we face. I understand and respect the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but he is not addressing the seriousness of the threat to the Chamber, which we were advised on.
Mr. Tyler: I entirely understand the severity of the problems that the Leader of the House and the Commission face. I did not have the exclusive briefing, as I am not a Privy Councillor, but I understand from the briefing that I received that the earliest time at which a permanent screen could be erected would be the summer recess of 2005, at a cost of £1.5 million. Why, after just four days' experience of the temporary screen, are we rushing to take a decision that cannot be implemented for 15 months?
We take this issue seriously, and this is the point of our amendment. For goodness' sake, let us look at the matter sensibly and in a comprehensive way in terms of the risk to all those who come into the parliamentary estate—not just those who come into this Chamber. Let us ensure that the issue is considered in security terms. Two of the three reasons that the Leader of the House has just given for putting up a permanent screen rather
480
than allowing the temporary one to be assessed sensibly are aesthetic; they have nothing to do with security. I want time to think very carefully about the comprehensive security of the whole of the parliamentary estate in the interests of all who come here and work here, rather than just of those who come into this Chamber.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. If we are to have a permanent screen, it will have to be ordered and fabricated. The Commission has been advised that that would take about 15 months.
Mr. Tyler: That is yet another reason to get it right.
I want to move to another point, which might seem trivial but it illustrates my argument. I take it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is one occasion on which we must be allowed to refer to the geography, the architecture, of this place. We are not usually allowed to do so. I would ask all hon. Members to look up at the Strangers Gallery for a moment. One hon. Member, who has the same biblical background as I do, referred earlier to sheep and goats. I would refer, perhaps, to first-class and standard visitors. Those who are permitted to sit in front of the screen will be the first-class visitors. They will get a special dispensation because they can be vouched for as reputable. The fact that the permanent screen would be on the same alignment as this temporary screen means not only that we lose 30 seats but that the preferential seats, the first-class seats, would often be unoccupied, while visitors in standard class would be sitting on top of one another.
I invite colleagues to consider these circumstances. A constituent whom an hon. Member does not know terribly well might say, "Please get me two tickets for the Gallery". The hon. Member might think, "Wait a minute, I'm not sure that I know this pair. They are both reputable members of the women's institute, but I don't actually know them. They might be suffragettes. I don't think I'll take the risk. I think I'll put them in standard class." In no time, there will be a new parliamentary expression, "behind the screen", which will mean some of our electors being treated as second-class citizens.
Mr. Mackay: Cattle class.
Mr. Tyler: Behind the screen will equal cattle class. Imagine the circumstances! I understand from those who know everything about this place—that is, the Doorkeepers—that the only recent incidents of any significance in the House have taken place at the front of the Gallery. At present, the front of the Gallery tends to contain very distinguished people, including Members of the other place and diplomats, but that is not exclusively the case. So, if the permanent screen is installed on the same alignment as the present one, the checking of who goes into which section of the Gallery will cause difficulties.
Mr. Simon: I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman. The most recent incident took place behind the screen this afternoon, but we could not hear it because it was behind the screen.
Mr. Tyler: That is a very valid point.
I want to illustrate my argument further, because this checking has already started. This week, hon. Members have had to vouch for visitors in order to get them a seat in front of the screen. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who unfortunately cannot be here this afternoon, sought entry for his 80-year-old aunt. Imagine if, after a lifetime's ambition to come to the House, he did not feel able to vouch for her safety in this place. She might, for all I know, be a latter-day suffragette or a dangerous liberal. Who knows? But the way in which this issue is currently approached will not satisfy our constituents that all those who elect us to come here are being treated as equals.
The facilities for Members to show constituents around this place were referred to earlier, and that is an important issue. If we were able to strike a deal that no permanent arrangement would be made until we had better facilities to bring our constituents round and to show them democracy at work, that might be a trade-off that we could accept. The motion as it stands would push through, at speed and with no real experience of the new arrangements, a permanent structure that has all sorts of implications for the perception of this place as a parliamentary democracy open to those who send us here.
Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of points with which I have some sympathy. He rightly draws our attention to his amendment, and I would like him to clarify it further. Its effect would be that we could not erect a permanent screen, but it says nothing about dismantling the temporary screen, which would then, de facto, become the permanent screen.
Mr. Tyler: I had to take the advice of the House authorities on this matter. As I understood it, the motion on the Order Paper simply referred to the permanent screen. Strictly speaking, the temporary screen is not on the Order Paper. All that I am saying, in what I think is an entirely logical response to the point made by the Leader of the House, is that the comprehensive reassessment of all the security arrangements of the House should take into account the efficacy of this temporary screen. That seems to be a perfectly common-sense approach, yet it is being dismissed out of hand as though it were irrelevant to the overall comprehensive assessment.
Mr. Evans: I want to make a practical point. We do not recognise anyone in the Strangers Gallery, on either side of the screen, at the moment. To pluck a figure out of the air, if 14 youngsters from my constituency asked to come here, the chances are that I would ask for tickets for them to sit in front of the screen, without perhaps knowing all 14 of them, because I would not want the embarrassment of putting them the other side of the screen. Is that not the kind of weakness that terrorists look for?
Mr. Tyler: There is real problem if a representative democracy starts to differentiate between one constituent and another. We could get rid of that problem if a scheme were developed to screen off the
482
whole of the Gallery, but I think that our noble Friends from the other end of the building would be worried if they thought that we were suspicious of them.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I for one will support his amendment and vote against the motion, if that becomes necessary. May I just ask him how we will be able to test the efficacy of this screen? What test will we apply? If there is no terrorist outrage in the course of the next year, will we say that it is a success, and that therefore we ought to have a permanent one? That is what worries me. We should start on the basis that it will go.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is what is extraordinary about presenting us with a fait accompli. We have nothing on paper to explain precisely why it is there. I think that the Leader of the House wants to intervene. but before I invite him to do so. I shall sum up this point: we are being asked to do something very difficult this afternoon, and there is a genuine dilemma. I want to return to the issue of the security context in which this decision should be taken.
Mr. Hain: I have intervened on the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions, but it helps the debate to do it in this way. He says that there is a fait accompli. It is the duty of the House authorities, and in this case the House of Commons Commission, to look after the security of the Chamber and the whole Palace. In this exceptional situation, unlike that when we returned after one recess and found armed guards in place, and when there was no debate on the Floor of the House—which made access more difficult for many people—we are having an open debate, and it is not a fait accompli. The hon. Gentleman made a great populist point about first and second-class visitors. It is the case now that a visitor queuing in the street cannot get into the Special Gallery but must sit in the area that is now behind the screen.
Another point that the hon. Gentleman needs to address is that the recommendation from the Security Service was not for a screen going right the way round the Special Gallery and Press Gallery—[Interruption.] It was not, and I shall explain why in a minute. On that logic—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Leader of the House, but these are matters that will perhaps have to be dealt with in the wind-up. I understand his need to explain these points, but it is becoming a speech rather than an intervention.
Mr. Tyler: It was a helpful intervention, if I may say so. I wish that the Leader of the House had made those points at the outset. What I find extraordinary is that the argument for a permanent screen has not been developed. A sort of argument has been developed for taking rapid action and producing a temporary screen, but let me come to a much more important point—[Interruption.] I will give way to the Leader of the House. How can I resist?
Mr. Hain: I apologise, but the reason that I moved the motion in the way that I did was that I relied on the

483
common sense of Members to understand the position. If they wanted me to spell out every detail, I could have done that and answered all these points. It was not in the interests of the security of the House or the Chamber to have done that, but as the hon. Gentleman has required me to do it, I have responded.
Mr. Tyler: Let me take up the point made by the Leader of the House that there was no parliamentary approval for the concrete blocks and armed guards. I regret that, and I think that he agrees, because the Modernisation Committee, which he chairs, has taken a lot of evidence about the fact that our constituents are now greeted in their Parliament with a fortress-like response. There must be some way in which we can mitigate that. Nowhere else in the United Kingdom are our free citizens greeted not by someone who says, "Can I help you? What do you want to see or hear?" but by somebody armed with a weapon.
Let me return to the substantive point. It is time that people in the House understood the significance of the comprehensive analysis of all the security issues. I understand what the Leader of the House says about that. What I object to is the piecemeal approach. There is no evidence that the screen will assist in the security of all those who work in this building. That is extremely important. For example, I asked the Leader of the House just a few weeks ago what steps are being taken to deal with the large number of lost identity passes for entry into Departments of State, and whether there was a similar situation in this building. I received no answer. In my view, as others Members have said, that is a far more serious security risk to us, out staff, our visitors and all the people who work in this building. I hope that a serious attempt is being made to deal with that issue, because it is much more serious than anything that is happening in the Gallery. We are told that there are 12,500 passes, excluding those of Members of the two Houses. I hope that there is some more effective scrutiny, not just of the way in which they are brought in and out of the House, but of their issue and of what happens when they are lost.
We must also think carefully about other parts of the parliamentary estate. Let me give one example. Twice yearly, the Prime Minister appeals in the Boothroyd Room in Portcullis House in front of the Liaison Committee of senior Members of the House, with the public a few feet away. What security is there—I do not want the Leader of the House to tell me, as it would be much better if he did not. That illustrates, however, that it is extremely important to take a holistic view about the way in which our democracy works. Of course, there must be a balance between access, transparency, visibility and security. To pretend that the most sensitive area is in this Chamber suggests to me that we are more worried about people shouting than about weapons, which would be an extremely unfortunate signal to give.
As a footnote—this is not the most important issue—we should consider value for money. we have already heard, £600,000 has been spent on the temporary screen. Why not just see whether it is sufficient? There is no rush, despite what we have been told. The cost will be £1.5 million if the motion is passed this afternoon, for a screen still on that alignment, and still with many of the difficulties that I have mentioned.
484
If the amendments, which link together, are accepted, we would for the moment decline to give an okay to an expensive, elaborate scheme, which has not been worked through or considered in terms of alternatives, until we had considered holistically the security situation and thought a bit more about what we, as the representatives of the public and our constituents, should do to make sure that Parliament is still as accessible and visible as we can make it.
Mr. David Kidney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: I am about to finish.
My concern is the security of all who work in and visit these buildings, not just this Chamber. By prioritising a permanent screen, we are going in the wrong direction.
3.7 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: If I start by mentioning that I am in my 40th year in the House, it is not in order to suggest that my value judgments are any better than anyone else's, but, I hope, to state that my love of the values and traditions of this House are no less than anyone else's here today. That is the position from which I start. There is no way in which I would have contemplated such a change as has been suggested if I thought that it could be avoided.
One simple fact must be addressed. At Prime Minister's questions, the Government, the alternative Government, and two thirds of the House of Commons, could be eliminated, all in one attack. What a target that is for a terrorist. What a temptation. We must face up to that. I was here at the time of the CS riot gas attack, and was sitting just opposite the letter stand. Barbara Castle was speaking, the gas canister arrived at her left foot, and within seconds—such was the dissemination, as was mentioned earlier—we were all coughing, spluttering and having to dive out of the Chamber. Twice, to my recollection, possibly three times, we tried unsuccessfully to get back into the Chamber, and it took hours to clear the Chamber and make it habitable for Members of Parliament.
Let me make this simple point. A very small quantity of one of the toxic biochemical agents available today, if released into the air conditioning circulating system of this Chamber, would be less immediate but far more devastating in its effect on Parliament.
An erroneous point was made, namely that when the Chamber was destroyed by a bomb during the war, that did not destroy democracy. No, it did not, because it did not destroy Members of Parliament. It did not destroy the Government, and it did not destroy the Opposition. It merely destroyed the place where we met—so Parliament met somewhere else.
We constitute a sitting invitation to a terrorist, and for that reason alone I have changed my mind completely. When screens were first suggested, at the time of the CS gas attack—the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) will remember this—we decided against them, but the circumstances are vastly different now.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Apart from the fact that the screen does nothing whatever to protect the ventilation

485
system—[Interruption.] Perhaps, rather than sitting there and threatening us with the security services, the Leader of the House should have told us all this. The canister episode pre-dated the extensive screening facilities that we now have. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman—the Leader of the House may be able to respond if he cannot—that a metal canister containing CS gas or some more toxic material would in all probability be caught by the current security arrangements, which did not exist in the days of Barbara Castle.
Mr. Williams: The point about the ventilation system is legitimate. The presentation by the intelligence services made it clear that it would be possible to separate the system.
Mr. Heald: As part of the arrangements for the temporary screen, the ventilation system for the Chamber and for the Gallery behind the screen is already separate.
Mr. Williams: As for the other point made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), screening arrangements were introduced because they would detect something the size of a CS gas canister; but, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) pointed out, we do not necessarily comprehend the sheer toxicity of the substances now available. Only minute quantities need to circulate. They might not kill us there and then, unless we were lucky, but they might well do so within the next couple of days, which would have the same effect: the Government would be gone, the Opposition would be gone, and two thirds of the House of Commons would be gone.
Mr. Challen: Obviously we should not stray into the technical details of how an attack might take place. So far, however, Members have spoken only about the air conditioning as a way of disseminating whatever might be introduced into the Chamber. I should like to know how fast the contents of a container that landed on the floor and opened in the middle of the Chamber could be absorbed into the air conditioning and so on. It seems to me that a device would be necessary to expel the contents of a phial, and that would be picked up by the security arrangements unless there was a lapse in security. It would have to be large enough to be picked up in order to be effective in a Chamber this size, which is not a small room. We are not talking about a substance that would be introduced into the water or air conditioning systems; we are talking about something that would be thrown down from the Gallery, and would not be picked up by security. I hope someone will tell me whether I am being a bit of a fantasist.
Mr. Williams: Some of these substances are odourless, and it would take time to detect some others. By then it would be too late.
Mrs. Browning: If the screen were not there and a substance or canister were thrown on to the floor, would not the authorities have to lock us all in the Chamber?
486
Whatever had been thrown might be communicable, and until it had been analysed and tested, we would all—if the substance were fatal—be doomed to die. That is the reality of modern weapons of this kind. The security services would recommend the procedure that I have described, and the House authorities would have to carry it out.
Mr. Williams: If a biological agent were involved, the safest procedure for everyone else would be to insulate the Chamber and leave us all inside.
Mr. Challen: A weapon need not be described as such merely because it contains some substance. It is a weapon if it contains a delivery system. Chucking a phial into the Chamber does not constitute a delivery system. We should concentrate on the real threat rather than engaging in general talk about chemical and biological weapons. We have done that in the past.
Mr. Williams: The only answer is to create a barrier that cannot be penetrated.
Mr. Challen: I agree.
Mr. Williams: That is the purpose of the screen—to stop things being thrown or ejected, or released in the Gallery so that the air conditioning can deal with the distribution.
It has been said that the screen is unfair for two reasons. The first that people in the Gallery are likely to be the victims, rather than the Government being eliminated. Let me make a different point. A terrorist works on the basis of a target's vulnerability. While we are vulnerable, we are a target; when we are not vulnerable, the terrorist will look for an alternative target. He is unlikely to launch an attack on the other side of the screen, knowing that it will not affect those on this side—or, at any rate, is less likely to do so.
As for the red herring that the Chamber should not be protected until the whole House is protected, that is nonsense in terms of priorities. We must do what we can in the order in which things can be done effectively. We could get this done in weeks. That is why the obscenity up there was put up: we knew that it would take 18 months to provide an alternative.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews): how do we judge efficacy? If nothing has happened after 18 months, do we conclude that the measure was effective or that it was not necessary? We could select either answer. The decision must be made here and now—and, to my mind, the decision here and now must be, and I hope will be, in favour of a permanent screen.
3.18 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). I think I am the only other Member present who, like him, was in the Chamber when the CS gas canister was thrown. The situation was precisely as he described it. I was also here, as he may have been, when manure was thrown and when red ink was thrown. After each of those occurrences, some Members said that we needed a

487
screen. I, like the right hon. Gentleman, was one of those who persistently and continually said "No, we do not." Being here—being in public life, and accepting our vocation—means having to take risks, in the Chamber and outside.
I was a member of the Commission—along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—when we heard the first request for a screen, about 15 months ago. A security Committee of the House, with Members from all parties, said that we should consider it. My right hon. Friends and I argued robustly against it, as did the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell). I do not think I am betraying any secrets when I say that the Commission was unanimously sceptical and unconvinced by the evidence given to us.
I yield to no one in my affection for this House. I love this place, and I love this Chamber. One of my great regrets is that the Chamber has seen much of its life depart from it over recent years, but that is another issue. I believe that it is absolutely crucial that this Chamber should be available to any citizen of this country, or indeed to any visitor to this country, who wants to come to listen. It is very important that we should have adequate screening processes, so that people are not put at risk.
Only the other day, I was walking out through St. Stephen's entrance. Someone had one of those pepper-shakers. The police—those who serve us so very well in this place and have not yet been mentioned in this debate—apprehended that chap, and he was not going to come in. It is right and proper that we should have the most careful surveillance of those who want to come to listen to our proceedings. However, when the evidence was brought to the Commission earlier this year by the head of the security services and subsequently by the Metropolitan police commissioner, I was very reluctantly persuaded that the screen is a price that we have to pay for the tragic times in which we live. It is a price that we have to pay if we are to continue to allow people to queue on the pavement and to come in to listen. I believe that it is a reasonable price.
There has been much rather frivolous talk about second-class visitors and all the rest of it. We have different categories of visitor now. We have the diplomats, visiting heads of state and visiting parliamentary delegations; there is a row of seats up there for them. We have Members of the other place, who have special seats, just as there are special seats in the House of Lords for us. We have those who are known to us—family, friends, constituents whom we know and for whom we can vouch. However, when the people who have the security of this country in their care tell us—as a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, I heard this, too—about the sleepers, they say, "We are not worried about the ones who have a record. We are worried about the ones who have no record and who are waiting their time to perpetrate some act, be it to come in with a bomb and detonate themselves, or to come in with a phial of chemicals or whatever," as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) so graphically illustrated. We have to protect this place and ourselves because we, however imperfectly, are the embodiment of the democracy of this nation.
488
It was a spurious analogy to talk about the bomb in 1941. Of course, democracy is far more important than the building, much as I love the building. The building was destroyed. This Chamber was destroyed. We went to Church house briefly. We then moved into the Chamber of the House of Lords, and the Lords moved into the Robing room. For almost 10 years, that is how we conducted our proceedings. If we had a physical attack, we would be able to do something similar now. I hope and believe that there are contingency plans, so that we can do precisely that, but what we are talking about here is someone coming and putting into the Chamber substances that could have the devastating effect that has already been described.
Of course, we cannot protect ourselves in all places and at all times but the fact that we cannot do everything is no excuse for doing nothing. I was persuaded by the head of the security services and others that the course that we are taking is the right one because a specific threat has been identified. Almost uniquely within the free world, the Executive and legislature of this great country come together at predictable and predetermined times. That presents a target.
Of course, that happens not just at Prime Minister's Question Time, although that is the weekly predictable time. This very week, we have had two other occasions, which were rightly widely canvassed on the radio, television and in the media, when the Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box, made a statement surrounded by his colleagues, with all my senior colleagues in front of him and the Chamber crowded. That happens in this Parliament but does not happen in others. It does not, for example, happen in Congress because there is a separation of powers and the Executive do not sit in the legislature or go regularly to the legislature. Having had this specific threat pointed out and this real threat underlined, I believe that the Commission would have been in grave dereliction of its duty had it not taken the action that it took.
I say to colleagues on both sides of the House, and I hope that I will not be castigated by my colleagues on the Commission for this, that my first reaction was to say that we should do this immediately, having been convinced. Then we discussed it among ourselves and decided that it was right to share that knowledge a little more widely. That was why Mr. Speaker wrote not just to Privy Councillors but to Whips of minority parties—the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) was there and spoke eloquently at the meeting—and to one or two others. They came, and they listened. Of course, there was not unanimity but there was an overwhelming view that this was deeply regrettable but absolutely necessary.
Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, who is making a very eloquent speech, but he has introduced into the debate something that as far as I am concerned has not been mentioned before: a specific threat—I am quoting, I think, exactly what he said—to this Chamber of something being thrown into the Chamber.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for debate. It is not a point of order for the occupant of the Chair.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course it is not a point of order. I

489
am making a point that is entirely relevant to the debate and therefore it is important that colleagues should know about that. I believe that we have a duty to consider something else, and it came to me during the debate. I have been slightly distressed by some of the comments, including sotto voce comments, that I have heard. I respect everyone who is a robust defender of parliamentary democracy. I have dedicated my life to that and hope that I will do so until the end of my days. However, what we need to do—I will talk to the Leader of the House and my colleagues on the Commission about this—is probably to arrange a series of briefings for Members of the House, so that they may share some of the information that we have been given on a strictly confidential basis. It would be the right thing for us to do, because that would dispel some of the manifest ignorance that is present here today.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I certainly do not wish to introduce any further note of dissent into the debate but some of us remember being told before that there was an immediate or imminent threat, not to this House but to this nation, and some of us feel that we were misled. However, the point of my intervention is to ask my hon. Friend whether he would give me reasons for voting against the amendment, which so far no one has done.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to give those reasons. I say in passing that I do not accept the thrust of what my hon. Friend sought to say in the first part of his intervention, because I believe that what we were told we were told in good faith. However, I am not going to rehearse all the arguments. I believe that what was done last year was entirely justified, but that is my personal view. As for the amendment, the answer in effect is partly that given by the Leader of the House and partly that given by me in my intervention on the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). While I will not particularise, the screen we have is not wholly as effective as a permanent screen would be. I do not rate the aesthetic considerations as paramount, but I believe that they are real. However, I am concerned about security, not aesthetics. Secondly, having been persuaded that we live in such perilous times that the most comprehensive review of security in this place is necessary and is going on—we must not forget the context in which we are discussing this matter—the sooner we can have the maximum protection, the better.
The permanent screen will give maximum protection. It will take between 15 and 18 months for it to be ordered, fabricated and erected, and the only time in the next two years when we can do that without further extensions of parliamentary recesses—we have just had such an extension, for that purpose—will be in the long summer recess of 2005. We therefore need the approval of this House, and I beg colleagues in all parts of the House, if they care about this place and access to it by anybody on the street who wants to come and listen, to support the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader today.
3.31 pm
Mr. Siôn Simon: There are some strange misconceptions in this debate; it is almost surreal. If it were the case that were it not for
490
the screen, we would all be murdered, there might be something in it—but that is not so. All the screen does is protect us from the people sitting behind it—not from those in front of it or in Central Lobby, or from the serried ranks of journalists. If I were a terrorist—or the kind of sleeping infiltrator whose entire life was dedicated to annihilating or subverting our democracy and traditions—with the wherewithal to get my hands on a little phial of lethal anthrax, I should probably also have the initiative to write to my Member of Parliament, whom I had taken the trouble to get to know a little, and ask him to get me a seat in front of the screen.
Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a difference, even these days, between someone who queues up and comes in off the street and a member of the parliamentary Lobby?
Mr. Simon: It is true that I can tell the difference between a member of the public—indeed, a member of the human race—and a member of the parliamentary Lobby. The point remains; I do not think that the screen is likely to be a significant deterrent to a resourceful terrorist. What it does is to send out all the wrong signals about us, our Parliament and our democracy to the people whom we are supposed to represent.
Mr. Hain: If my hon. Friend does not think that the screen will be a serious deterrent, why does he think that MI5 recommended it to us?
Mr. Simon: The screen tells us that the head of MI5 and her minions are no doubt excellently cognisant of the evil machinations of terrorists and that, although she understands terrorism very well, she perhaps does not understand Parliament particularly well. Anyone who understood Parliament would not put a screen half way up the Strangers Gallery, because they would know that any resourceful terrorist would just go in front of it.
Mr. Hain indicated dissent.
Mr. Simon: The Leader of the House shakes his head. I do not in any way impugn the motives or the sincerity of the Commission. the Leader of the House or any of the people who have made the decision. I just do not agree with them.
The one time that the Leader of the House and his able sidekick were nodding vigorously was when the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said that just because we cannot do everything is not a reason for doing nothing. That is a good point—one in politics generally that I make all the time. On this occasion, however, it is better to say that there is no point doing something that is foolish. Doing something foolish is not better than doing nothing.
I have a couple more random points. Several speeches, the preponderance of which have been in favour of the screen, in a Chamber that is clearly more hostile because of it, have mentioned the peculiarity of the concentration and predictability of the timetable in this Parliament, compared with others. That is just not true. I was in the Assemblée Nationale, I think at the same time as my hon. Friend the Member for

491
Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), where we watched Government question time. The President was not there, but the Prime Minister and the whole Cabinet were, and there was certainly no screen, although that event was perfectly predictable. Most Parliaments are quite predictable; there is nothing particularly unique about this place in that sense.
That thing—that screen—sends a signal to our constituents that we are frightened. It says to Mr. Terrorist, "I am frightened of you. You have made me change my ways. You have put a barrier between my Parliament and my people." It says, "You are winning, Mr. Terrorist. I am running, I am hiding." British democracy should not hide from terrorists; that is not the way. The screen is based on a misconception. By having it, we are telling people that they can come in and bring their anthrax, and that if they get a ticket, they can go into the Gallery with it. We are telling people that they are welcome to swing their anthrax around Central Lobby, and that if they can get an invitation to lunch with a Member in the Strangers Dining Room and lob a bit of chemical weaponry around there, that is no problem. The only place where there will be no point in their taking their anthrax is up there where the screen is. What is the point of that?
Mr. Hain: On the logic of my hon. Friend's argument that we are frightened, he would not have armed police guards or concrete bollards outside, or airport-type security here. He would have no security at all. My point to him is that this move is about reducing risk. The Security Service advice was about reducing risk, for the good reasons that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) explained.
Mr. Simon: No, that is not true, because the screen does not work. All that it is, is a symbol. It is a physical barrier symbolising something that is metaphorically very important. It is telling people "You can't come in. You can't turn up and walk into the same Room as your Member of Parliament, feel what they feel, see what they see and hear what they hear", and that is wrong.
My final point, although I am conscious that the motion and amendment do not really allow for the full expression of this, is that hon. Members are wrong when they suggest that we should give the screen time. We all know what happens to temporary structures that are erected, especially when evaluation is impossible, as several hon. Members have said. We do not want to give the screen time. We need to get rid of it before we get used to it.
3.38 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I want to echo several of the points that have been made, and make one or two further ones, if I may. I immediately pick up on what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) has just said. It is obvious that different Members have different views on the signals sent out, and that there are genuinely different interpretations of the signal question. I do not think that the argument is conclusive either way, although I tend to agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
492
We could embark on rather pompous statements about our great democracy and the mother of Parliaments and so on, although we are rather over-prone to those in this place. There are other great democracies around the world. The great democracy in the United States does not, to my knowledge, involve having screens in Congress, even though the President of the United States makes a predicted state of the union address in Congress every year. The Australian Parliament—arguably the most vigorous of Parliaments, of which I wish I were a Member, because it is like this place used to be in the old days—has most of the Government there every day answering questions, but I am not aware that there is a screen in Canberra, either. The arguments about signals and comparisons with other Parliaments are very balanced, and are not conclusive one way or the other.
Another point concerns the two categories of visitor. Of course it is right to say that there have always been different categories of visitors—or, as we charmingly call them, strangers—to this House, but as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, the screen makes that obvious. It cries out that there will be at least two very different categories of people: the favoured, who are here courtesy of a Member of Parliament; and the others, who have yet to be able to persuade an MP that they have an intimate relationship with them and can be vouched for. That is the key difference between the fait accompli that we have been presented with, and which we are being asked to make permanent, and the previous situation. That is why having the screen is a significant step.
We should also consider a point that has been touched on only briefly, and which was raised in the now notorious meeting of the great, the good and the not so good; I, too, was there. Why do we assume that the Press Gallery is so secure that we need do nothing about it? I asked this question in that meeting and I ask it again: how certain can we be that nobody who could present a threat to this House will ever get into the Press Gallery? I remain to be convinced, to put it mildly.
Mr. Hain rose—
Mr. Forth: The Leader of the House is about to attempt to convince me.
Mr. Hain: I am not sure that I can convince the right hon. Gentleman about anything, but I shall at least answer his question. As he knows, in order to be issued with a pass, members of the Press Gallery are subject to the normal required vetting procedures. A number of trainee journalists sometimes enter the Chamber. They will be subject to more rigorous checks, in line with the checks to which others are subjected in other Galleries.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House and I wish that I were convinced, but unless things have changed radically since I last looked at the issue, sadly, I remain uncertain that the system for issuing passes in this place is remotely secure. I have never seen evidence—
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Forth: Let me finish making this point, since the Leader of the House has raised it. That said, I do not

493
want to dwell on it, because it relates to the point, which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) rightly dwelt on, about the overall comprehensive security review. I want reassurance in this regard: I want to be told that when passes are issued for free entry into this place, we are absolutely certain of the identity of the person concerned, and of the fact that they are not a security threat. I am not certain that that is so. In fact, I have reason to believe that, until fairly recently, the information given on the application form was scanty to say the least, that references were never taken up, and that proper security vetting was never done. So I am not happy about passes issued for the Press Gallery or more generally.
Mr. Challen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the press have become very adept at sneaking all sorts of impostors into places such as airport loading areas and perhaps even Buckingham palace? Does that not show that such actions could pose a very significant security threat to Members in this Chamber?
Mr. Forth: Yes, and in a sense I wish that we saw more people in the Press Gallery more frequently; looking at it now, it is no security threat whatever. [Laughter.] The point is a serious one. We have become obsessed with the temporary screen—and rightly so, as it is the only point at issue today—yet the rest of the Chamber's surroundings remain gapingly open.
David Burnside: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much confusion, in that many Members misunderstand the difference in security terms between a general threat and a specific one? It would help the conduct of our debate if we explained the difference between a general threat—those of us who voted for the war received a visit from our local police, who pointed out that there was a general threat—and the specific threat that many of us experience in Northern Ireland. The latter is designated as coming from a defined source—a terrorist organisation—and is directed at the individual. It would help to inform this debate if the Leader of the House defined whether we are talking about a specific threat to the House, or a general one from worldwide terrorism. There is total confusion on the subject.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. It is because, tragically, of the experience that our Northern Ireland colleagues have had and continue to have of such difficulties, that they should be listened to carefully on this and related issues. It would be salutary if we heard more—I hope from my hon. Friend—about Northern Ireland's experience over the years of the different forms of parliamentary chambers there.
That brings me to the role of the Security Service. I know that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends would like to elaborate on that, if they can catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not as convinced as I suppose I should be that, because someone even as eminent as the head of our Security Service comes here to give the House advice, that settles the matter. That is not how it should work. Under our governmental system, I thought that officers, officials and advisers
494
advised and Ministers—in this case, Members—disposed. That is how it should work. Of course we should take full account of the advice given to us from the highest levels of our Security Service—indeed, we should take it very seriously. In the end, however, we are the ones who have to strike the balance between the demands of democracy, incorporating the symbolism of what we do, and the advice given by security people.
Sir Stuart Bell: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right that the decision is a matter for the House. The Leader of the House said in opening the debate—this might help the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside)—that the Security Service made an "unequivocal" recommendation to raise the screen. That is the basis on which the screen was raised and it explains why we are having this debate. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr. Forth: I am not disposed at this stage to go into the details of that argument, which I shall leave to others, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point and hope that it was helpful in the context in which it was raised.
I shall touch briefly on the extravagant claim—we have now effectively disposed of it—that the screen would protect, as someone said, "thousands" of our staff. We have established through our useful debate that the screen will provide protection only for Members of Parliament and those who work for us in the Chamber. There are a small number of such colleagues, as I shall call them. They are the only people for whom the screen will provide protection and, in a way, that diverts the attention of potential terrorists to the rest of the parliamentary estate. Let us not hear any more talk from those who have supported the proposal and set this thing up that the screen somehow gives protection to all parliamentary colleagues and staff. It does nothing of the kind, and it may even have a counter-effect.
Mr. Hain: To help the right hon. Gentleman, whose point of view I respect, I should say that the director general provided evidence, based on intelligence, that there was a threat to the House—
Kate Hoey: To the Chamber.
Mr. Hain: Let me finish. That intelligence led the director general to make a specific recommendation that the best way of combating that threat was to erect a permanent screen. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) and other members of the Commission will be able to confirm that. That was the director general's recommendation. I could have spelled it out in greater detail at the beginning of the debate, but that would not have been in the best interests of the security of the House. It is all about reducing risk, not eliminating it.
Mr. Forth: No, we cannot have that from the Leader of the House. We moved the motion for the House to sit in private precisely to give the Leader of the House the opportunity to provide those details to the House. He led his troops against that move, claiming that he would be able to tell us everything necessary for the debate. He cannot have it both ways; that really will not do. It is unfair of him to say that. He should come clean with us,

495
with all the risk that that entails. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) spelled out in a point of order, the Leader of the House cannot now hide behind the fact that providing details would be wrong. We gave him the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the right lion. Gentleman did not mean it when he spoke about coming clean with the House. I have been more open and frank with the House than members of the Commission would ideally have wanted. Am I to produce documents shown to me, or transcripts of conversations—including much probing—between the director general of MI5, myself and members of the Commission? Given the seriousness of the threat to Britain's security—which has resulted in arrests up and down the country—and to the Chamber, I do not believe that that would be a responsible course to take.
Mr. Forth: I shall let the record speak for itself on that.
Mr. Mackay: I listened closely to the exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and the Leader of the House. I decided to vote against the House sitting in private, because of the assurances that I thought we had received from the right hon. Gentleman. I was misled and, if I had my time again, I would support my hon. Friend's motion.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Would that procedures allowed us to have another go at going into a private sitting. Sadly, we are faced with yet another of the procedural boondoggles so often visited on us, and we cannot do that any more. We are therefore stuck, as it were, with debating the matter in public.
Chris Bryant: Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that, if we were sitting in private, any information from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that was of greater substance than he has given us already would remain private?
Mr. Forth: If the hon. Gentleman were present, it would not, but I think that I would trust almost everybody else.
Mrs. Browning: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we face a difficulty in this debate? One hon. Member thought that the screen's sole purpose was to prevent attacks involving firearms. It is clear from the debate so far that some hon. Members have more information than others—members of the Commission obviously do. I am not a Privy Councillor, and have not been briefed. Nevertheless, any hon. Member who has been subject to a security threat will accept that, if the debate is to be held in open session, uniform information must be given to everyone beforehand.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. I hoped that I would not have to say this, but she forces me to: I was a member of the Commission and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) pointed out, I was privy to the original discussion of this matter. Apparently, things have changed since then, although I am not sure that they have changed that
496
much. I was also present at the very secret meeting when very senior and important hon. Members were told a little more. Not all of us know all of the information, but we are talking about the possibility that people could enter the parliamentary estate with chemical or biological agents concealed about their persons that are impossible to detect by normal methods. Such people could therefore get those substances into the building and, by implication, into the Strangers Gallery. They could then distribute the materials to our disadvantage—or, indeed, death. That is the argument, as I understand it.
The proposition is that the screen will deal with that threat. As we are all being very frank and open this afternoon, I shall adopt the same approach and say that there is a gap at the bottom of the screen through which someone could easily distribute one of the agents that I have described. The screen's effectiveness is therefore extremely doubtful.
Mr. Heald: I assure my right hon. Friend that I took up the point about gaps in the screen. I was told that there is none, and that other measures have been taken to ensure that what he fears cannot happen.
Mr. Forth: Well, "other measures being taken"—we have all heard that one before. That may not convince the House, but the sad truth is that we remain very vulnerable, in other parts of the parliamentary estate that are not privileged in having a screen, to people releasing agents of the sort that I have described.
Mr. Robathan: Any head of MI5 is going to cover his or her back and say that all possible measures have been taken. That is understandable, and I do not blame the present head of MI5 for saying that. The security conditions are very difficult but, if there is a definite threat that a person in the Strangers Gallery might lob something into the Chamber, I am willing to go along with having that ghastly screen. However, those responsible for security may merely have scratched their heads and decided that they needed to do everything that they possibly could. The screen is one thing, but would my right hon. Friend agree with sitting in a bunker underground, for example?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the distinction between officials and elected representatives. Officials have a proper role to play, and they are obviously playing it, but our role is very different. We have to assess the advice given by officials, and then put it in the context of our relationship with our electors and the democratic system overall.
I want to say something about money. We have become very prone to be liberal about spending taxpayers' money.
In fact, there are few, if any, mechanisms to protect the taxpayer from us. We are supposed to protect the taxpayer from the Government, but protecting the taxpayer from us is a much more difficult proposition

497
and the body that does that, or is supposed to, is the very body that has put up the screen. It has already spent a lot of our money and wants to spend even more—
Kate Hoey rose
Mr. Forth: Before I develop that point, I shall of course give way to the hon. Lady.
Kate Hoey: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was horrified when I saw how much had already been spent and what will be spent if the proposal goes through: more than £1 million, give or take a few hundred thousand. Many of my constituents live near this place and many actually work here; few of them will be protected by the screen. In my area, we cannot find a community police officer because all the policemen have been moved from Lambeth to protect the Palace of Westminster. Is it not just as right to provide protection for my constituents? Instead, we have this pathetic knee-jerk reaction, which simply plays into the hands of terrorists?
Mr. Forth: I am sure that the hon. Lady speaks for many, if not most, of her constituents if they are as fully aware of what is going as I hope they will be tomorrow—after we have rejected the motion, ideally. We are talking not only about the money for the existing screen—that has been spent already—but about the further money proposed for the permanent screen. Indeed, were we to reach the next item on the Order Paper, there is a proposal to spend another £5 million or so. Many Members may not be aware that lurking behind that is an even more grandiose scheme for a Disney theme park approach for visitors to this place—the cost of which, when I last saw it, was £15 million.
I mention those figures because we have an alarming tendency to spend taxpayers' money even more liberally, in proportional terms, than the Government, and that is pretty difficult to achieve. I hope that, as Members examine this and the following motion, they will consider carefully what we are spending on ourselves on behalf of the taxpayer.
My final point reinforces the comments of the hon. Member for North Cornwall, in whose name the amendments were tabled—my name is on them, too. The amendments were intended to give the House the opportunity to pause for consideration, and I hope that it will look carefully at them and agree to them. For the moment, we can do nothing about the temporary screen, but I hope that the amendments will give the House the opportunity not only to consider the efficacy of that screen—not to regard it as permanent in any way and perhaps to return to the subject in the future—but to defer commitment to the greater expenditure on the permanent screen until we have had a much better chance to assess what such a screen means and what it can and, more importantly, cannot do. That was the intention in tabling the amendments. They give the House a much better opportunity than simply—
Geraint Davies: Have the right hon. Gentleman and the other proponents of prevarication who support the amendments considered
498
placing a screen down the centre of the Chamber, so that he and others could sit near the Strangers Gallery while we sat on the other side in safety?
Mr. Forth: I shall treat that intervention with the respect that it deserves.
This debate is a very important occasion. It is one on which we are given an opportunity to consider our role, our relationship to security—both specifically and more generally—and the matter of messages and symbols. It is in that context that I hope the House will agree to the amendments, which will give us an opportunity to return to the issue when we are better informed and when we have made a much better assessment of where we are going and why we want to go there.
3.58 pm
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: There is a canard abroad. I have heard it whispered that those of us who bitterly oppose this thing do so because we wish, in some way, those on the Front Bench to be put at greater risk. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I can reveal to you that one of the reasons that I habitually attempt to take this particular seat during Prime Minister's questions is so that I can, if necessary, suddenly interpose my own body between the Prime Minister and the public or indeed the Press Gallery—[Interruption.]—and even the Leader of the House.
Important points are involved. First, I fundamentally and truthfully believe that such a measure will, in the long run, increase the risk for Members in the House. If the motion is passed and there is a permanent screen, that will be a small victory. It will not be a victory for the Serjeant at Arms, with whom I have considerable sympathy, or for the security services, with which I have infinitely less sympathy after the events of last year, or for the Metropolitan police commissioner, for whom I have a great liking and admiration. It will be a victory for the grim list of organisations appended to the Terrorism Act 2000, including Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, al-Qaeda and so on, which will have the enormous satisfaction of knowing that simply through their existence and the threats that they say they pose they will, to adopt a note of pomposity, have turned the mother of Parliaments into a Lilliputian assembly that, they would perceive, is cowering behind a wall of glass. Those are criminal organisations, and should be treated as such—they should never be endowed with the status of warriors. They should not be treated as warriors but with contempt.
I do not remember speaking well of Baroness Thatcher in the House before, but I shall do so now. When she was bombed, only hours afterwards she was at the Conservative party conference carrying on with the democratic process. We should remember that indomitable spirit of politics, because we are sending a message—to utter another pomposity—not just to our constituents but to every terrorist organisation that is hoping to undermine and destroy our democratic way of life through the threat that they pose.
Secondly, this building does not belong to Members of Parliament. It is a royal palace but it is also, in the best sense, the people's palace. They come here not because

499
of sufferance or invitation from us but as of right. They have a right to be here, not as voyeurs or listeners, but to participate in the process. Of course they cannot speak while they are here, but their very presence alters the warp and weft of what we do. When the House laughs, as its does, fortunately, on occasion, that laughter is echoed by the people who sit there and are with us. When the place is sad or solemn, that sadness and solemnity is felt not just down here but throughout the Chamber. Any interference with that is a gross distortion and intervention with the body politic—they will know it, and we will know it. There could not be a stronger metaphor for the alienation of people from politics than what we are proposing to put up.
Of course, there is risk, but we are here to take risks. We are not here simply to soak up the many benefits and privileges associated with being a Member. We are here to bear and share the risks that our people bear and share. What rights have we over, for instance, those who preside over public order or public matters? What about the thousands of judges—I do not hold a special brief for them—or the counsel who appear before them? What about the thousands of jurors who go into a jury box every single day in public courts—institutions that, the Leader of the House will not mind me reminding him, are the among the most noble in the country. Those jurors are at risk, but are we going to put glass screens up in the public gallery in all our courts, thereby changing their very nature and the way in which they operate?
We must accept the risk and, although the Leader of the House gave the notion short shrift, I am unapologetic in arguing that our action will increase the risk to people behind the screen. They are at as much risk as us, and if we isolate ourselves by an absolute action we will increase the risk to them.
Mr. Heald: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, apart from Parliament, nothing is more important than our courts being able to function and being open to scrutiny from the public? He knows as well as I do that where courts are thought to be at risk for various reasons, security measures are taken. He will have been to Winchester and seen them.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: On occasions. I have some experience of courts. I know of no plans to put up glass screens between the court and the public gallery. On occasion we put up screens, and it is one of the ways that we deal effectively with terrorist cases—on occasion. That is why I accept from the Leader of the House that a temporary screen in the Chamber may—I do not know—have been necessary, but a permanent screen is certainly not necessary.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. and learned Gentleman, as always, makes an eloquent speech, but he is advancing a spurious argument. There may be occasions when it is necessary to take proper protective measures in court, but there is a weekly occasion to which a number of us have referred when the whole of the Executive and most of the Legislature are assembled here.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have enormous respect.
500
If we are speaking about the ability to foresee events of a strategic nature, the courts are no better and no worse off than we are. Massive trials involving terrorists are well publicised. We know when they are to take place. Terrorists know when they are to take place. I have never been in a position where screens have been erected between the public gallery and a court in those circumstances—never. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, his argument will not wash.
The problem is that it will be perceived outside, with a great deal of justification, that we are protecting ourselves—I take the hon. Gentleman's argument that this is democracy, but what will be perceived is that we are protecting ourselves and letting the rest go hang. We must bear the risk, and we must be seen to share it with others and with our constituents.
We take risks when we hold our surgeries. I have no more intention of holding my surgeries behind glass than I have of sitting in the Chamber behind glass, because my constituents have a right to see me not through a glass darkly—that may improve the situation in some respects—but face to face, both in those circumstances and here. If we vote for a permanent screen we will be contributing not to national security, but to national neurosis. There will be no end to it. I very much hope that the amendments will be passed, in which case the substantive motion will fall, but if they are not, I hope the substantive motion will be defeated in due course.
4.7 pm
Mr. James Arbuthnot: I should like to take up a point raised by the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), who made a distinction between a defined threat and a specific threat. I should like to pursue that into the difference between a threat and a vulnerability.
We have not been told whether there is a defined, specific threat to the House. That is probably not that relevant. One week there may be a defined threat, and the next week that threat may have diminished. One week there may be none, and the next week a defined threat may be heard about. By the time a defined, specific threat is discovered, however, it may be too late to do anything about it.
One thing that no hon. Member has questioned in the debate so far is that the House, and the Chamber particularly, is vulnerable. It is obviously vulnerable. Nobody has questioned that. It is not just a potential target for terrorism—it is an easy potential target. It is not just an easy potential target—it is an attractive, easy potential target, and not just for terrorists. It is a target for hoaxers as well. That could be just as disruptive to the life of this country as real terrorism, and just as bad in publicity terms for the terrorist threat. If a powder or a gas or a liquid were released into the Chamber, it would be impossible to tell for a long time precisely what was contained in it.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. The hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) made an important intervention on the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) in respect of the specific threat to

501
which my right hon. Friend refers. I suspect that what the Leader of the House is really trying to tell us is that the issue is not guns, but toxic threats.
Mr. Hain: I said so.
Mr. Howarth: Only under pressure.
Will my right hon. Friend please explain to the House how some of these toxic materials can be brought into this Chamber and disseminated in such a way as to cause the kind of mayhem that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West threatened us with? It is my understanding that some extremely dangerous items are around, but unless the substances can be propelled into the atmosphere, they will not do the damage that we are being frightened into believing faces us.
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend has an expertise in these matters that I do not have, but the advice of the director general of the Security Service is clearly quite specific. It is that that threat does exist and that there is a risk not only of these weapons being brought into the Chamber, but of their being disseminated in a way that would cause serious damage. I am personally prepared to accept that advice.
If this Chamber is vulnerable, the question is: what should we do about it? We have been advised that we can reduce the vulnerability by putting up a screen more permanent than the one up there above us. I accept that that is not the answer to all the problems that we face or all the threats and vulnerabilities in the rest of this Palace, but it is an answer to some of the problems that we face.
The alternative, of course, is to do nothing, and to accept the vulnerability of this Chamber. That has its attractions. It has the attraction of continuing the accessibility, in one sense, of the constituents who come to see us by having them within the same broad Chamber as we are. But to reject the clear and firm advice of the director general of the Security Service on this issue runs the risk of courting the accusation of bravado.
I am reminded a bit of the incident of Neil Kinnock. When the Security Service advised that we should put up gates at the entrance to Downing street, Neil Kinnock pledged the Labour party to removing the gates as soon as it got into office. We have had a Labour Government now for seven years, and this is one of those many things on which they have, I am afraid, failed to deliver. There used to be a time when one could walk down Downing street and there were no crowd barriers or gates, and when Harold Wilson could be photographed at the door of No. 10. Those times are gone. There used to be a time when one could come into this House and there would be no searching and no screens. Those times are gone. Actually, those crowd barriers, gates, searches and screens, and the queues that they create for all the members of the public who try to get into this House, are the barriers that currently exist between ourselves and our constituents.
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very eloquent and compelling speech, for which I am
502
grateful. Some hon. Members seemed to suffer a memory loss, however, and I wish to remind the House of what I said in my opening speech, and I relied on the director general of MI5 when I said it. As I said, if an al-Qaeda group managed to throw a phial of anthrax or ricin into the Chamber or, maybe even worse, if a suicide agent released the substance without anybody noticing, which we have been advised is quite feasible, the particles would immediately begin spreading throughout the Chamber because of the way in which the air flows work. Within minutes, total contamination could occur. I remind the House that that is what I said earlier.
Mr. Arbuthnot: That is advice that I think we should be foolish to reject.
We might wish that the security-free days of old were back, but I think that it would be very foolish for us to pretend out of bravado that they are back. They are not back; they are gone, and I suspect that they are gone for good.
Derek Conway rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 66.

Division No. 138]

[4:15 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Drew, David (Stroud)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Drown, Ms Julia

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Atkins, Charlotte

Edwards, Huw

Bacon, Richard

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Banks, Tony

Fisher, Mark

Bayley, Hugh

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Bell, Sir Stuart

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Greenway, John

Betts, Clive

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Blizzard, Bob

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Hain, rh Peter

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Hanson, David

Heald, Oliver

Browning, Mrs Angela

Healey, John

Bryant, Chris

Hendrick, Mark

Burnham, Andy

Hendry, Charles

Burstow, Paul

Heppell, John

Burt, Alistair

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Caborn, rh Richard

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Cairns, David

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Jamieson, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Jenkins, Brian

Coaker, Vernon

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Conway, Derek

Keeble, Ms Sally

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Khabra, Piara S.

Cotter, Brian

Kidney, David

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Davis, rh Terry (B"ham Hodge H)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Dean, Mrs Janet

Linton, Martin

Denham, rh John

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Dismore, Andrew

McAvoy, Thomas

Djanogly, Jonathan

McCabe, Stephen

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

McFall, John

503

Mclsaac, Shona

Ruffley, David

Maclean, rh David

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Shaw, Jonathan

McNulty, Tony

Short, rh Clare

McWalter, Tony

Spellar, rh John

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Martlew, Eric

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mercer, Patrick

Sutcliffe Gerry

Merron, Gillian

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Moran, Margaret

Tyrie, Andrew

Munn, Ms Meg

Walter, Robert

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Ward, Claire

Pickthall, Colin

Wicks, Malcolm

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Winnick David

Plaskitt, James

Woodward, Shaun

Pollard, Kerry

Woolas, Phil

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Worthington, Tony

Pound, Stephen

Wyatt, Derek

Prosser, Gwyn

Quin, rh Joyce

Tellers for the Ayes:

Robertson, John (Glasgow

Mr. Jim Murphy and

Anniesland)

Jim Fitzpatrick

NOES

Allan, Richard

Paterson, Owen

Amess, David

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Arbuthnot, rh James

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Pugh, Dr. John

Barker, Gregory

Randall, John

Barrett, John

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Beith, rh A. J.

Robathan, Andrew

Brady, Graham

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Burnett, John

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Cameron, David

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Challen, Colin

Selous, Andrew

Chope, Christopher

Simon, Siôn (B ham Erdington)

Doughty, Sue

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Evans, Nigel

Skinner, Dennis

Forth, rh Eric

Spink. Bob (Castle Point)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Stunell, Andrew

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Swayne, Desmond

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Thurso, John

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Grieve Dominic

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Hancock Mike

Waterson, Nigel

Hermon, Lady

Watkinson, Angela

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Whittingdale, John

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Williams Hywel (Caernarfon)

Keetch, Paul

Willis, Phil

Lamb, Norman

Wilshire, David

Llwyd, Elfyn

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Loughton, Tim

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Young, rh Sir George

Mackinlay, Andrew

Younger Ross, Richard

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Tellers for the Noes:

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Mr. Andrew Mackay and

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Mr. Edward Leigh

Question accordingly agreed to.
Kate Hoey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought, when I was elected to Parliament, that all Members were treated equally. You have often said that yourself. How is it, then, that some Members have clearly had more briefings and more intelligence, and know more about whether there is a direct threat to the Chamber or to the House, whereas I, as a Member of Parliament representing my constituents, have not had all these briefings? How am I supposed to vote on this
504
issue when I do not have the information that some more privileged Members have? I represent my constituents just as much as they represent theirs.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member is equal—
Mr. Forth: No!
Mr. Speaker: Order. That includes the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I would say to the hon. Lady that she was a Minister at one time and was therefore privy to information that I did not have. She did not disclose it to me. Some hon. Members who took part in this debate were and still are members of the Security Committee and therefore have access to security information. I have told the House that I took soundings before the debate and I invited Privy Councillors to come to the meeting, which was attended by about 60 right hon. Members. To their credit, not one individual leaked any information to the media. I had the very sensitive problem of security to worry about. I will give information to the House as openly as I can, but the hon. Lady will understand that, where security is concerned, I hear of things that I have to keep to myself or to a very few people, because of the sensitivity of the matter.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that I sought to move that the House sit in private because I was concerned that the Leader of the House would not be able to share with those of us who are not members of the Commission particularly sensitive information, which we might have been able to discuss if the House had met in private. The Leader of the House assured us that we would be able to have such discussions, then opened his speech by saying that he could not disclose such information. Indeed, throughout the debate, he said that he could not share such information fully with Members because of its sensitivity. I submit that he has not played a fair game with hon. Members on this matter.
Mr. Speaker: The House made the decision whether to sit in private or not. The hon. Gentleman asked that the question be put, and I did that. The House must now decide on amendment (a), which was moved by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
The House having divided: Ayes 92, Noes 99.

Division No. 139]

[4:34 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Brady, Graham

Allan, Richard

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Amess, David

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Bacon, Richard

Burnett, John

Banks, Tony

Burstow, Paul

Barker, Gregory

Cameron, David

Barrett, John

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Challen, Colin

505

Chope, Christopher

Paterson, Owen

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Plaskitt, James

Cotter, Brian

Pound, Stephen

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Dismore, Andrew

Doughty, Sue

Pugh, Dr. John

Drew, David (Stroud)

Randall, John

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Robathan, Andrew

Evans, Nigel

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Fisher, Mark

Forth, rh Eric

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Short, rh Clare

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Skinner, Dennis

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Grieve, Dominic

Stunell, Andrew

Hancock Mike

Swayne, Desmond

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Thurso, John

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Tredinnick, David

Keeble, Ms Sally

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Keetch Paul

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Kidney, David

Tyrie, Andrew

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Lamb, Norman

Walter, Robert

Leigh, Edward

Watkinson, Angela

Llwyd, Elfyn

Whittingdale, John

Loughton, Tim

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Willis, Phil

Mackay, rh Andrew

Wilshire, David

McWalter, Tony

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Mallaber, Judy

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Wyatt, Derek

Maude, rh Francis

Young, rh Sir George

Mercer, Patrick

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Richard Younger-Ross and

Osborne. George (Tatton)

Alan Simpson

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Alexander, Douglas

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Arbuthnot, rh James

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Foster, Don (Bath)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Bayley, Hugh

Greenway, John

Beith, rh A. J.

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Bell, Sir Stuart

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Grogan, John

Berry, Roger

Hain, rh Peter

Betts, Clive

Hanson, David

Blizzard, Bob

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Heald, Oliver

Healey, John

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hendrick, Mark

Bryant, Chris

Hendry, Charles

Burnham, Andy

Heppell, John

Burt, Alistair

Hermon, Lady

Cairns, David

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Coaker, Vernon

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Connarty, Michael

Conway, Derek

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Jamieson, David

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jenkins, Brian

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Khabra, Piara S.

Denham, rh John

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Djanogly, Jonathan

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Lazarowicz, Mark

506

Lidington, David

Purnell, James

Linton, Martin

Quin, rh Joyce

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

McAvoy, Thomas

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

McCabe, Stephen

McFall, John

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Mclsaac, Shona

Shaw, Jonathan

Mackinlay, Andrew

Spellar, rh John

Maclean rh David

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

McNulty, Tony

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Martlew Eric

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Ward Claire

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Waterson, Nigel

Merron, Gillian

Winnick, David

Moran, Margaret

Woodward, Shaun

Munn, Ms Meg

Woolas, Phil

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Worthington, Tony

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Pickthall, Colin

Tellers for the Noes:

Pollard, Kerry

Paul Clark and

Prosser, Gwyn

Charlotte Atkins

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 76.

Division No. 140]

[4:51 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Hanson, David

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Alexander, Douglas

Heald, Oliver

Arbuthnot, rh James

Healey, John

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Hendrick, Mark

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hendry, Charles

Bayley, Hugh

Heppell, John

Beith, rh A. J.

Hermon, Lady

Bell, Sir Stuart

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Berry, Roger

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Betts, Clive

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Blizzard, Bob

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Jamieson, David

Jenkins, Brian

Browning, Mrs Angela

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Bryant, Chris

Khabra, Piara S.

Burnham, Andy

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Burt, Alistair

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Cairns, David

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Lamb, Norman

Lazarowicz, Mark

Coaker, Vernon

Lidington, David

Connarty, Michael

Linton, Martin

Conway, Derek

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

McAvoy, Thomas

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

McCabe, Stephen

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hadge H)

McFall, John

Dean, Mrs Janet

Mclsaac, Shona

Denham, rh John

Mackinlay, Andrew

Djanogly, Jonathan

Maclean, rh David

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McNulty, Tony

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Martlew, Eric

Edwards, Huw

Mercer, Patrick

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Merron, Gillian

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Moran, Margaret

Foster, Don (Bath)

Munn, Ms Meg

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Greenway, John

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Pickthall, Colin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Grogan, John

Pollard, Kerry

Hain, rh Peter

Pound, Stephen

507

Prosser, Gwyn

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Purnell, James

Tyrie, Andrew

Quin, rh Joyce

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Ward, Claire

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Waterson, Nigel

Winnick David

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Shaw, Jonathan

Woolas, Phil

Spellar, rh John

Worthington, Tony

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Young, rh Sir George

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Charlotte Atkins and

Trimble. rh David

Paul Clark

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Mackay rh Andrew

Allan, Richard

McNamara, Kevin

Amess, David

McWalter, Tony

Bacon, Richard

Mallaber, Judy

Banks, Tony

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Maude, rh Francis

Brady, Graham

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Burnett, John

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Burstow, Paul

Paterson, Owen

Cameron, David

Plaskitt, James

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Challen, Colin

Chope, Christopher

Pugh, Dr. John

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Robathan, Andrew

Cotter, Brian

Robertson Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Dismore Andrew

Robertson Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Doughty Sue

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Short, rh Clare

Evans Nigel

Simon, Siôn (B ham Erdington)

Fisher, Mark

Skinner, Dennis

Forth rh Eric

Spink,Bob (Castle Point)

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Stunell, Andrew

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Swayne Desmond

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Teather, Sarah

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Thomas Simon (Ceredigion)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Grieve, Dominic

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Hancock, Mike

Walter, Robert

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Watkinson, Angela

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Whittingdale, John

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Wilshire David

Keetch, Paul

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Kidney, David

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Wyatt, Derek

Leigh, Edward

Llwyd, Elfyn

Tellers for the Noes:

Loughton, Tim

Richard Younger-Ross and

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Alan Simpson

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the installation of a permanent security screen between the Chamber and the Strangers' Gallery.

Visitor Facilities
5.6 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. You will be aware that the motion on visitor facilities is important because it affects the security of the House and involves large amounts of taxpayers' money. If I am right, we have only 54 minutes to debate the motion. I seek guidance on whether that is long enough to debate such an important issue. would it not be wiser to conduct it at another time in the near future?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the House. At 6 o'clock, other Members may want to participate in the debate, but it will stop then and it will be for the House to decide whether to take the matter up again at a later date.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the sake of clarity, if someone were on their feet and still participating in the debate at 6 o'clock, are you saying that, sadly, the matter would have to be carried over to another day?
Mr. Speaker: Once again, the right hon. Gentleman shows that he has a grasp of these matters. Yes, I would agree with that interpretation.
5.8 pm
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): I beg to move,
That this House approves the First Joint Report of the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee on Visitor Facilities: Access to Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 324) and endorses the Committees' proposals for a new reception and security building at the north end of Cromwell Green.
The whole House is left wondering whom the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) thought might still be on their feet at 6 o'clock.
In moving the motion, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will reflect on the points made in our previous debate. It would be paradoxical, if not ironic, if Members who have opposed the introduction of the security screen in the Strangers Gallery on the ground that it separates the public from the House, were also to oppose this motion, which is about improving the welcome and information given to visitors to the Houses of Parliament.
The primary purpose of the motion is to improve the welcome that we give to visitors. If the motion is accepted, visitors' first contact will be with visitors' service staff, not with security staff. The service staff will ensure that visitors are headed in the right direction, and given information and answers to their questions. In that way, people will be generally welcomed to their Parliament.
Bob Spink: Will the service staff be able to direct visitors—who may have travelled some distance—to a toilet facility that they can use right at the outset of their visit?
Mr. Woolas: The Government are ever vigilant about what is important for visitors. The point may be light

509
hearted, but it is serious. I am pleased to say that the answer is yes, and that the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee has paid attention to the matter. The toilet facilities have been improved in the area occupied by what I always used to call the policemen's café but which I believe is now called the Jubilee café.
The necessary security screening will be transferred from its present site at the St. Stephen's entrance. That will be more convenient for visitors and staff, and it will also enhance security, as the screen will be outside the main building, in the new reception centre.
I want to draw to the attention of the House the importance of the new centre in respect of the numbers of visitors already coming to the Palace. I hope that those numbers will rise as the measures being recommended are put in place and as the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to attract more visitors are acted on.
The joint report states that 130,000 people visited the Commons Public Gallery last year. Between 250 and 500 people visit the Gallery in the House of Lords every day. Last year, about 96,000 visitors came on constituency tours, 9,000 in school parties, and 87,000 during the summer opening period.
Judy Mallaber: We are talking about securing greater access for visitors, so will my hon. Friend look seriously at how access for constituency tours can be increased? People need to be able to see what the House does, but seats are to be taken out of the Gallery. Moreover, the change in working hours means that it is less easy to arrange constituency tours to the House. Will he make a serious commitment to finding ways to allow people at least to walk past and see the business of the House in progress?
Mr. Woolas: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The domestic Committees and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House have been looking at the matter, and we will be able to report improvements in the arrangements for constituency visits. I should explain that the Committees' report—for which I hope the House is grateful—is part of a wider strategy of improving information about, and access to, the Palace of Westminster. The proposals should be seen in the context of the work of the Broadcasting Committee to improve webcasting and the televising of Standing Committees and Select Committees. I am sure that the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), is mindful of that.
At this point, I should inform the House that, unfortunately, the Chairman of the Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), cannot be here. She is on parliamentary business, but I know that she would have liked to attend the debate.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Minister said that it would be illogical for anyone who opposed the security screen on the ground that we should have greater contact with constituents not to welcome these
510
proposals. However, the previous debate was about whether the security screen was necessary. The Minister's position appears contradictory: he says that it is marvellous to encourage more people to come here, but he said earlier that he wants to take out 30 seats and stop people getting close to the House of Commons.
Mr. Woolas: I said that that would be paradoxical and ironic; I did not say that it would be illogical. If the hon. Gentleman were to pursue his argument, I think that it would follow, logically, that he should support the new visitors centre. The argument put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in favour of the security screen was based on the need for security. Erecting the screen could be seen as an alternative to debarring public entry to the Public Gallery. I do not think that any hon. Member would support that. It is a question of finding a balance between the security advice on safety—in the previous debate, we heard the advice from the Security Service—and encouraging greater access to the Palace. That is a difficult task, which is why I think that the House will welcome the Committee's thorough and comprehensive report.
Andrew Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Woolas: I shall take one more intervention, but then I must move on—this is only a short debate.
Andrew Mackinlay: I have a question on a technical point. At the United Nations, screening takes place outside in tents, because if there were a blast it would spread. Thus casualties could be minimised. Cromwell green is in a trough, so how can that be the best or safest place in the event of a suicide bombing? I am genuinely bewildered by the idea that it is safer to be in a trough or a moat. To pick up on a point made in the earlier debate, perhaps we could explore the use of tents—unappealing as they are—on the green in Parliament square.
Mr. Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Perhaps he will be able to see things in the round as I continue my remarks.
The reception centre proposal is to be seen very much as the first stage in a series of improvements. Proposals for a more expansive and comprehensive visitors centre will come later and at that stage proposals for further improvements to security screening—from the proposed change from the St. Stephen's entrance to the new Cromwell green site—will be vetted. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but the proposal in the Committees' report to move security screening from the historic Westminster Hall so that it is outside the main building will in itself improve the security arrangements.
Mr. Paul Tyler rose—
Mr. Woolas: I said that I would take only one more intervention, but the hon. Gentleman seems so keen to intervene that I shall give way to him, but then I want to proceed with my speech.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I am very supportive of the limited proposals, but I am worried by one thing that the Minister said. It sounded as though the first instalment is part of a continuum and that by voting for it we may be committing ourselves to a much more expensive and expansive visitors centre. Will he assure the House that although this is a first step, it will not necessarily lead to anything more than the current proposals before the House?
Mr. Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I think was a probing intervention. He is right to ask that question, and I am sure that reading the report will reassure him that we are discussing the first of what I and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hope will be two stages and that there is no commitment—
Mr. Forth: Oh no.
Mr. Woolas: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that there will be a third stage, too. However, I can reassure the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
We are grateful to the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee for the speed and thoroughness with which they produced the report. We are also grateful to their counterparts in the House of Lords for their helpful co-operation, as this is very much a joint endeavour of the two Houses.
The Government strongly support the Committees' proposals for a new reception and security building on Cromwell green, and my right hon Friend the Leader of the House is personally strongly committed to improving the welcome that we give our visitors. It is regrettable, although unavoidable in the current climate, that our visitors should be subject to security screening on arrival, but that must be done in a manner that is welcoming and unobtrusive. We must remember, and demonstrate, that it is their Parliament, not ours. It is not acceptable that people are left queuing in the rain—as is the case currently—often for long periods. It is also important to provide a decent working environment for our staff.
I shall not speak in detail about the report, as I hope that the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee will be able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to explain exactly what is proposed. The report is clearly set out and I especially commend to the House the fold-out plan in appendix 1; I am sure that all Members have looked at it. The House will want to know how much the new building will cost.
Mr. Robathan: Yes.
Mr. Woolas: I shall tell the House what the costs are. The report states that initial estimates for the capital costs of the new building and the covered walkway
"are in the region of £5 million."
The additional staff required will result in increased revenue costs of about £200,000, which will be divided on a 60:40 basis with the House of Lords.
Mr. Forth: I hope to go into this in greater detail if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker but, for the sake of completeness, does the Minister accept that paragraph 32 of the report, which says that costs
"are in the region of —5 million",
goes on to say:
"The final figure is therefore likely to be higher"?
Can he give us a clue as to how much higher? He is asking us to sign up to £5 million, but there is an unspecified additional element. Paragraph 34 says that there will be
"a total increase in revenue costs of £200,000 per annum. Some extra costs would also be incurred".
Are we not entitled to be suspicious that we are being sold a pig in a poke?
Mr. Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of the news reader who asked a news reporter if he could tell the viewers what the next surprise was going to be. The report is honest. It says what the costs are and allows some flexibility, but the Committees of the House, the House authorities and all hon. Members can scrutinise the matter, just as the right hon. Gentleman is always urging us to do. If we were to be as precise as he implies we should be, he would criticise us equally strongly. The report is clear and honest, and I have been as straightforward as possible in explaining the costs.
The House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords House Committee will oversee the implementation of the project and monitor expenditure and management closely. I emphasise that the Government regard the reception building very much as the first stage. We hope that we will be able to build consensus on proposals for a proper visitor and education centre, with space for exhibitions interpreting our work, for the reception of school parties, and perhaps for a book and souvenir shop. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, our education unit does great work, but its facilities and resources are extremely limited. I believe strongly that we must do more to welcome and inform the electors of tomorrow. I accept that it may be difficult to find space for those facilities within the confines of the Palace, but I hope that the House authorities will press ahead with an exploration of options nearby.
Mr. Stephen Pound: I would be more persuaded to support the proposal if I thought that the statue of the butcher of Drogheda would be moved. Will it remain or will we hopefully lose it as a result of the proposal?
Mr. Woolas: It is not within my power or ability to rewrite history. My hon. Friend's interpretation is colourful, but the Chairman of the House of Commons Advisory Committee on Works of Art, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), would have

513
something to say about his proposal. Instinct and common sense tell me to duck the question and move swiftly on.
Mr. Pound: Is that a maybe?
Mr. Woolas: I am not saying, and I do not know.
Mr. Robathan rose—
Mr. Woolas: Does the hon. Gentleman want to give me a history lesson?
Mr. Robathan: As this is a special site listed by UNESCO, I do not think that we would be allowed to move the statue without the permission of the United Nations.
Mr. Woolas: The hon. Gentleman will be complaining about outside interference in the sovereignty of the House next.
I emphasise that the welcome we give our visitors is an important part of the way in which we engage with the public, but it is only a small part. We need to improve the way in which we engage with the majority of our constituents who never visit us in the Palace of Westminster, perhaps because, as in the case of my constituency, they live some distance away. The way in which our proceedings are broadcast and portrayed by the media, our website and the innovative use of new technologies are extremely important as well. The Modernisation Committee is addressing those wider issues, and I look forward with interest to its findings. We must accept that plans for the next stage—for a proper visitor and education centre—will take some time to develop. Our visitors deserve the best service we can give them. I commend the motion to the House.
5.24 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: I stress, as I did in the previous debate, that the matter before us is for Members—certainly for those on the Opposition Benches—to determine on a free vote. The fact that I am giving a view from the Dispatch Box does not mean that I expect my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby, should we end up there tonight.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so soon. I should make it clear, in case he did not realise it, that the Government Whips were drawing Members into the Lobby on the last vote.
Mr. Heald: You would probably complain, and rightly so, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I were diverted back to our previous proceedings.
I join in the thanks to the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), and to the Chairman of the Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for
514
Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), for their hard work as Chairmen of the Committees that produced this rare joint report.
Mr. Forth: On that point, would my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
Mr. Heald: If my right hon. Friend will give me a moment, I shall certainly allow him to intervene.
Mr. Forth: Have all the time in the world.
Mr. Heald: I fully accept that I should give way.
The visitor centre has been mentioned. It is the long-held ambition of some that there should be a fully interpretive visitor centre. The House of Commons Commission vetoed that idea, and the report does not include a visitor centre. Many of us believe that what we do in this place is already interpreted a good deal and that if we want to do something positive, we should encourage our constituents to attend and see the work that we do at first hand.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend was kind enough to comment on the work of the Committees and particularly of the Chairmen, one of whom, my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), is with us. Sadly, our other colleague is not present. Would it not be a good thing if we were able to carry the debate over rather than rush to a premature vote, not least in order that the Chairman of the Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) could be with us and enlighten us further?
Mr. Heald: I have full confidence in my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to put the matter in its proper context and to make the relevant points. However, I agree that it is wrong for important debates to be unreasonably curtailed. If the debate needs longer than the time allowed tonight, I would not disagree that proper time should be given for our deliberations.
Although the Deputy Leader of the House opened the debate by emphasising the importance of welcoming our visitors to Parliament, on which I entirely agree, there is an important security background to this debate, as well as to our earlier debate. The number of visitors to the House is high and rising, and the requirements for effective searching and screening are considerable. These factors have led to long queues in the rain for our visitors, which is not a good idea. In addition, we have had the problem of having to screen visitors outside in the sort of tents to which the hon. Gentleman referred, because St. Stephen's entrance is too narrow to accommodate more than two X-ray screening machines, and because there are times when it is right that the screening should take place outside the main building. One advantage of the proposal in the report is that a proper security screening building would be built, with three bays instead of two. That would allow a much quicker flow through, and such a building would be more suitable in security terms.
Andrew Mackinlay: Hon. Members seem to be talking in code. I realise that when we speak about security, we

515
must be sensitive. Perhaps—[Interruption.] The fact is that the Minister—I do not mean this critically—did not answer my point. I would have hoped that somebody would at least pull me aside and tell me why a building of the sort that is proposed will be better in terms of the safety for our staff doing the screening. Allowance must be made for a building exploding outwards. Locating it in a trough could contribute to casualties. In other words, such a building is not the right one; the motive is correct, but the building may be wrong.
Mr. Heald: I have not been privy to the detailed security advice of which my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is no doubt aware in his position as Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee. All I know from my general knowledge is that screening buildings that are used for security purposes usually have thick walls either side and a fairly flimsy roof, as the normal purpose is to get the blast going upwards rather than outwards.
The proposed building is a better security building in terms of screening. Directing members of the public through Westminster Hall rather than the narrow funnel of St. Stephen's entrance should mean that it is possible for long queues to dissipate more rapidly. Although some colleagues take the view that we have to be extremely careful about how we use Westminster Hall—I would certainly not wish it to be used inappropriately—we should bear in mind its history as a building that has been used for the public. I gather that in the early days, one end was used as a court, where there was a throng of prosperous lawyers, and that the other end was a magnet for commerce where shops and trades flourished. That was in about 1340, when the Keeper of the Palace was entitled to rents from those setting up booths or carrying their wares. Pepys was a regular customer in the 17th century, and Betty Martin, a linen draper in the Hall, was one of his many mistresses. In 1666, there were 48 shops, each with a frontage of 8 ft, and all of them had to be removed for coronations. which was apparently very inconvenient. Clearly, we have to respect the dignity of the place, but if it can be put to a use that helps the public, that is a good thing.
On costs, it is difficult to provide buildings in a setting that has been described as a heritage site for the United Nations, partly because they always need to be in keeping. A good job has been done in keeping the proposed building below the level of the wall so that it does not intrude into the architectural profile of the larger building. Furthermore, a security building of this sort is always expensive. My personal view is that the proposal is a moderate and proportional one that I support.
5.33 pm
Derek Conway: I welcome this opportunity to make a brief contribution to this evening's debate. I am conscious of the time and that many other honourable colleagues wish to participate.
We are considering the joint report of the Select Committee on Accommodation and Works, which I am honoured to chair. I pass on to the House the apologies
516
of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who is elsewhere on parliamentary duties. She has spent a lot of time working on this issue and would have liked to put her views directly to the House.
Discussions and conclusions between all parties on my Committee continued in joint deliberations with the Select Committee on Administration, and I place on the record the thanks of my Committee to the Administration Committee's Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, for that Committee's swift and positive action in enabling this joint report to be placed before the House. The prompt, constructive and supportive response of their lordships' Committees is equally appreciated.
The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) have most ably set out the background to the proposal. My Committee restricted its consideration to the format of the proposed building and its position, appearance and capability to function. I am sure that the House will have had an opportunity to read the fairly brief but pretty informative document that we produced. In particular, my Committee is concerned with section 4, which deals with the format of the new reception and security building. Right hon. and hon. Members who have genuine doubts about our report's recommendations—I accept that there are some—should cast their minds back to the marquee that recently adorned St. Stephen's entrance, which has been mentioned, serving as the security clearance point for the Palace. It was unsightly and unwelcoming, and it was not pleasant for staff to work in it, but sadly it was essential for a brief period.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I may not have an opportunity to put questions to other hon. Members later in this debate. Is it also true that we can dispense with the obtrusive, ugly, temporary building on Abingdon green, which is erected to process people for line of route tours during the summer? Am I not right in thinking that this limited proposal, which I accept, would dispose of the need for that temporary building?
Derek Conway: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a categorical answer, because the matter falls within the purview of the Administration Committee, which deals with the line of route, rather than my Accommodation and Works Committee. The two buildings have separate functions, however, and the temporary monstrosity that is erected over the summer deals with general applicants for the line of route rather than with those who enter the House on business.
Although my Accommodation and Works Committee wants to make visitors more welcome, it was not for us to second-guess the wisdom or otherwise gainsay the security advice offered to the House. Our remit concerned the positioning of the security clearance zone, and in a choice between that awful tent in front of St. Stephen's entrance and the proposals before the House tonight, the proposals are self-evidently preferable. The land gradients on Cromwell green will enable the current aspect to remain, so the view of the Palace will not change substantially. The new building will not detract from the appearance of the gable end wall, because it will be below eyesight. The new building will be traditional in character and will be in keeping

517
with the overall appearance of the Palace—other hon. Members have already made it clear that the Palace is a unique world heritage site.
As to the new building's function, the long, ramped, undercover lead-in will considerably improve the manner in which queuing takes place. Remarkable progress has been made by the Palace authorities in the past few years to make visiting their lordships and hon. Members less of an initiative and endurance test.
I have sat through the debates on this motion and on the previous motion, and I have discussed the matter in endless Committee meetings. Some hon. Members are concerned whether the House will be less welcoming to the public. I remember travelling on an overnight bus from Tyneside as an 11-year-old with my parents to come through the Palace on what was effectively a museum tour. When the IRA became active, security had to change, and, sadly, such issues keep changing, which is something that nobody likes or wants.
The visitor centre will ensure not only that the security clearance procedure continues to be effective and becomes speedier because of the increased number of routes, but that those waiting to get in do not have stand outside in all the elements. I am fortunate enough to represent a seat that is a dozen miles from the House, but some hon. Members' constituents travel for four or five hours or more, disembark from coaches and stand around waiting for the line of route in our traditional and wonderful British weather. Making this place more accessible and friendly will ease that process.
Bob Spink: Has my hon. Friend addressed the question of the drop-off points for coaches? At the moment, people are dropped off just to the west of Victoria Tower before entering Victoria Tower, but under the proposal, they must walk even further to St. Stephen's entrance, which is a point that must be addressed.
Derek Conway: The Administration Committee does not intend to change the line of route, and tourists who come to the Palace, particularly during the summer recess, will find that it has not altered. The new building is for those who visit to see Committees of the House, the Chamber and Members of Parliament themselves. The House may change the line of route in future after consultation with their lordships. Such matters develop, and the Minister has made it clear that the proposals before the House are not the end of the story—everyone wants access to this place to be easier and more understandable.
I want to record the thanks of the Administration Committee and the Accommodation and Works Committee to the Officers of the House, our external advisers and our Clerk for the quality of their guidance. A great deal of effort has been put into this project by a small group of experienced officials, and I hope that they accept our appreciation.
This is not the end of the changes that our evolving institution will face. As merely its current guardians, we act not only with caution and great care in our duty to preserve its historical character, but with the responsibility of being an accessible working centre for democracy. I therefore urge the House to endorse our joint report.
5.39 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Conway), who is a very distinguished Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee.
I apologise to my rather sensitive hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) for talking through parts of his comments, but I was merely imparting information. I assure him that he can amiably chat, or indeed break wind, throughout the course of my speech, and I will take no offence whatever.
I very much welcome the report. As the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup reminded us, it has taken us years even to refer to those who come here as visitors rather than strangers. When I was first elected in 1983, I was appalled by the way in which we treated our visitors, who were kept outside in long queues in inclement weather. Despite the fact that everyone in the House expressed concern about it, nothing was ever done, so it is about time that it was. It is a pleasure to see that we have very much changed our attitude towards those who come here.
The business of Parliament is not something to be done behind closed doors—nor, in my opinion, behind glass screens. We must welcome visitors who come here, and encourage others to do so—not to gawp at us, but better to understand how the place works. I sat through the previous debate behind that screen. There is a good view, but it is a bit like sitting behind a pillar at a football ground and being unable to see what is happening on the pitch. I understand that the permanent screen is to be somewhat more attractive.
During that debate, many hon. Members referred to this place as the mother of Parliaments. This might sound like nitpicking, but originally it was England, not this place, that was described as the mother of Parliaments. Parliament is an important place, however—not because it is full of MPs, although there are not many of us around tonight, but because it is so central to our democracy. For too long, we have allowed the sneerers, the cynics and the ignorant to belittle this place. The development of democracy in this country is an inspirational story that is by no means complete. However, we cannot just rest on that statement. We need to help people to understand the development of this institution and our history better, and history has to be taught—one cannot simply absorb it by walking around. A visitor centre would be very much part of that teaching process.
The report is a modest step in that direction. I speak as a member of the Accommodation and Works Committee and as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Works of Art—the two Committees are very much linked. I was encouraged by one of the conclusions in the report's summary:
"In considering these proposals, we recognise the demands for a large-scale interpretative visitor centre. We support this concept but believe that this is not feasible within the Palace of Westminster, and therefore recommend that suitable accommodation outside the building be sought."
That chimes with a proposal that I made to the Works of Art Committee in a position paper in January 2001. I recommended that we should establish a museum of political democracy in the vicinity of Parliament. Such a museum or centre should be purpose-built and adjacent

519
to the Palace: I thought that at the end of the building by the House of Lords and Embankment gardens would be ideal. It should tell the story of how our democracy has developed and how all the individuals and movements inside—and, more significantly, outside—this place have shaped our history over the centuries. The Committee accepted my proposal, and it went to the House of Commons Commission. There is some sympathy for it. It is a long-term project, but entirely appropriate to teaching people our history. We have a great story to tell—we should be proud of it and do far more to encourage people to understand it.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Given how long a project that is described as short term takes to come to fruition in this place, I am worried about the description of the proposal as long term. Will my hon. Friend give some idea of the time scale for the completion of such a long-term project? The celebration of the institution's third centenary in three years might be an appropriate time to ensure that we have such a centre.
Mr. Banks: The proposal that I put to the Committee would probably take 10 years, because it is for a purpose-built building in Embankment gardens. One can envisage all sorts of problems with that, but there is no reason not to think big. At times, this country's approach is small-minded and we are mean about funding. We are always trying to find someone else to fund projects. I have spoken to potential donors to such a museum and centre. If we are not prepared to pay for the construction of a museum or centre out of Government taxation, I know that many people in the outside world would be delighted to be associated—and have their money associated with it.
Mr. Lazarowicz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again and clarifying the proposals. I misread the report and believed that the proposed centre outside the building would be an interim facility until we had a visitor centre inside. If it is envisaged that such a visitor and interpretative centre would not be constructed for some years, is there not merit in providing some temporary centre near the House? The Scottish Parliament is an example of a short-term project that is taking a long time, but there is an excellent visitor centre in its temporary facilities. Could not such a facility be established? I do not believe that the proposal provides for it.
Mr. Banks: Well, it does. If my hon. Friend reads the summary, which is short, it states that the report recommends a temporary facility. I do not know how long temporary is. Perhaps it will be like the screen and remain for many years. The report provides for a temporary solution. I took the point slightly further because the report also mentions a large-scale interpretative visitor centre, for which the proposal does not provide. I believe that it should be our long-term objective and I proposed it previously. We are in a working building, not an arts centre, museum or gallery. However, we are surrounded by so many beautiful works of art that teach us our history that we should do more to bring them to people's attention. We can do that in the context of the current proposals, but we can also have long-term plans.
520
I am delighted that the report highlights the central role of Westminster Hall, which is the architectural gem of the Palace—indeed, it is one of the architectural gems of northern Europe. I found the attitude in the report of English Heritage to Westminster Hall annoying. I should like us to make available reproductions of the paintings, the sculpture and the literature in this place. We are desperately short of facilities. The pathetic facility at the entrance to St. Stephen's Hall, which is often not even open, passes as our only centre where people can buy books, literature and souvenirs of this place. I mean no disrespect to those who run it because it is not their responsibility but ours. After all these years, that is all we can offer. We must be much grander in our thinking about providing the sort of things that we see in museums and art galleries, while bearing in mind the fact that, although we have many works of art, the building is not a museum and art gallery.
Mr. Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman is right to describe Westminster Hall as an architectural gem. How will it be enhanced by a new, demountable, glazed lobby at its north entrance?
Mr. Banks: That is the point! Westminster Hall is an architectural gem, but it has to be used. It was constructed not as an empty space for people to wander round and gawp at, but as a working building. Indeed, the High Court was still in Westminster Hall until the latter part of the 19th century. If the hon. Gentleman reads Pepys's diaries, he will realise that Westminster Hall was in many respects the centre of economic activity—and certainly of social life—in London. Pepys used to buy his shirts and collars there. He used to drink his coffee there. He used to buy food there—
Mr. Pound: I believe that that is not the only sort of purchase he made.
Mr. Banks: He probably did that as well. There is an amazing story in his diaries of a naked man running through Westminster Hall, which would no doubt excite some Members, although not me.
Westminster Hall was a working building. For English Heritage to say, "You can't sell things there. You can't put sympathetic structures in there to retail the things that you want to sell" is pathetic. English Heritage is there not to ossify structures but to protect them. We are reclaiming Westminster Hall for its historic purpose. That is the lesson that I would like to put to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I am grateful that he asked me that question, although I am not grateful for the way in which he has worked me up into responding as I did. It is bad for the old ticker at my age. The report talks about proposed considerable refurbishment of Westminster Hall in 2006, and the visitor centre will add to that work in 2005.
We do not often get the opportunity to discuss the Advisory Committee on Works of Art. The Vice-Chairman is in his place today, and I am grateful for his support. It is good to have the opportunity to mention some of the things that we do. I hope that people appreciate the labels that now help them to learn something about the figures that grace our halls and rooms; there are no longer just anonymous statues or pictures on walls. We have rehung the whole of the

521
Committee Corridor with portraits of Prime Ministers, making it a kind of constitutional corridor. I hope that Members will appreciate the next innovation, which will be to name the Committee Rooms after some of our great, distinguished statesmen.
Bob Spink rose—
Mr. Banks: I give way to one of our incipient statesmen.
Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when Mrs. Thatcher's statue will be going up?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is quite covered by the subject that we are discussing.
Mr. Banks: I could tell the hon. Gentleman, but I am not going to. It is a state secret.
Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that consideration has been given to putting Lady Thatcher's statue in the visitor centre?
Mr. Pound: That would cut down on the visitors.
Mr. Banks: I cannot confirm that. I could make all sorts of little jokes about that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—
Mr. Pound: That is my job.
Mr. Banks: But I shall leave it to my hon. Friend.
No, that is not a proposal; it would inappropriate. The place for Baroness Thatcher will be in the Members' Lobby. I speak as someone who is no adoring sycophant, as some Conservative Members are in respect of Baroness Thatcher. They are happy to admit to it. The fact remains, however, that when all the narrow party-political issues have been forgotten, as they always will be—and as we all will be—the one thing that will be remembered is that she was the first woman to be Prime Minister. That makes her unique, and no one can take that away from her. Her place will obviously be in the Members' Lobby, and I hope that that will happen fairly soon.
I want to return to the point that I was making about Westminster Hall before I was sidetracked.
Mr. Robathan: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the beginning of his speech, but I was dying for a cup of tea. He has not mentioned, as he should, the fact that the area by Cromwell green, where it is proposed to build a visitor centre, is part of a UNESCO world heritage site. What does UNESCO say about this? Is it not a very important site?
Mr. Banks: Of course it is, and these things have to be balanced. I want to finish my speech, because it would be selfish to talk right through to 6 o'clock, so I shall deal with the point quickly. Yes, it is a world heritage site. Therefore, to allow Parliament square to be inhabited by
522
a permanent encampment is, in my opinion, wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] No, hang on a minute! I am one of the people who voted against the Government on Iraq and I have no reason whatever to regret doing so. In fact, I am encouraged by the fact that events have subsequently—although tragically, in many ways—proved correct some of the points that I and others made. I did not want that to happen, but that is how it has turned out. I therefore support the stand of the gentleman who is encamped on Parliament square, but he is desecrating a world heritage site. By all means, let us protest, and walk past, but not set up a permanent site there. The Countryside Alliance also did that.
We in this place do not have power over what goes on in an area that is clearly vital to the setting of the Palace. The Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee knows that I have proposed to his Committee, with the support of others, that we take powers over the whole of the environment of the Palace, including Parliament square and Abingdon green. We should take the decisions, because the peripheral area is crucial to an appreciation of the architectural and aesthetic significance of this site. I say that not because I oppose the political objectives of the guy in Parliament square, but because it does not do us any good, and it is about time that we took the power to do something about it—if Westminster cannot or will not.
Given the proposed refurbishment in Westminster Hall in 2006, and more of a problem in 2005 because of the temporary visitor centre, I want to put it on record that the Commission has agreed to a major exhibition in Westminster Hall to commemorate the abolition of slavery. I would not want that to be lost. The proposition is expensive and taking a lot of time to get together, but it will be a tragedy if we find that we cannot get access to Westminster Hall. The exhibition will be in conjunction with the national maritime museum. I hope that the Government will take that into account, and I know that the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee will do so. With that caveat, I very much welcome the report
5.57 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: Briefly, I want to make one supportive comment on the report and one cautionary comment.
The supportive comment is that it is about time that we understood that people come into this building for two quite different purposes. The extent to which we can signpost people in a sensible pro-active way in relation to those different purposes is important. I respect the work done by the Accommodation and Works Committee; this is a fascinating, mock-Gothic Victorian building. It is also an art gallery of some distinction. Yes, there are people who want to come to see a bit of history. Great! We ought to make it as easy as possible for them to do so. A far more important objective is to make the building more visible, transparent and open to people who want to see their representatives in a working parliamentary democracy. The report helps us in that. It is important that people are able to come into the building and know which way they are going, and it co-ordinates the response that we have been seeking from the Modernisation Committee in relation to those two specific purposes, which are quite different.

523
My cautionary comment is about the extent to which we are going far beyond the present proposal with the suggestion of a visitor centre, which has just been mentioned. I have huge misgivings about that, not just on cost and time grounds and in terms of impact on the architectural environment—I worked in an architect's office and for the Royal Institute of British Architects for some years. Incidentally, I am also said to be a direct descendant of Oliver Cromwell, and I very much deprecated the comments about my ancestor.
This is the important point: we should try to look forward, but it would be a far better investment of limited resources to make sure that everybody in the country has electronic access to the work of Parliament. It is not an either/or situation, but it should be seen in terms of priority. My constituents in Cornwall, if they are lucky in their schooldays, may make a brief visit to the Houses of Parliament, but that will not be anything like as useful to them as making sure that electronic access to the work of this place is improved, which we can do much more quickly. I recommend strongly to the Deputy Leader of the House and the Government that we give priority to that, and that we do not worry too much about these extravagant, long-term plans for a visitor centre.
5.59 pm
Andrew Mackinlay: Bearing in mind that we have only a few seconds left, I want to say that Westminster Hall is delightful this afternoon. It is uncluttered, and darkness is its greatest beauty—the proposed enhanced lighting will not improve it at all. I leave that thought with the House, and if there is a future debate—
It being Six o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

PETITION

  Empty Houses
  6 pm
  Mr. Kerry Pollard: I have a petition from Colin Fairrie and others in my constituency about private empty houses that have been allowed to fall into disrepair because there has been no investment. It is having a detrimental effect on the value of houses and on the condition of the area. Moreover, it is outrageous that at a time of acute housing shortage in the south-east in general and my constituency in particular, houses should be left empty.
  The petition of Colin Fairrie and others asks the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to take positive action.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Acute Mental Health Units
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: I thank Mr. Speaker for allowing me to discuss this subject.
  The concerns that I wish the Minister to address arise from the background to the tragic death of my young constituent, Tim Goff. Tim was 20 years old, a bright young man who had done well at Fearnhill school in Letchworth, in my constituency, and gone on to become a student at the university of East Anglia. At the beginning of September last year, Tim suffered his first serious episode of mental ill health, and was referred to the acute unit at Lister hospital in Stevenage. He was being kept under observation as a suicide risk. He died in the bathroom there, having hanged himself from a ligature point in the suspended ceiling. His parents were devastated. They are here today. I know that everyone will understand their sense of loss and their desire to ensure that this risk is dealt with to avoid such distress to other families. I hope that the Minister will join me in expressing condolences to the family.
  After the tragedy, Peter and Susan Goff looked into the safety issue. They discovered that in 2001 both the Northern Ireland Adverse Incident Centre and the NHS in Scotland Property and Environment Forum had issued a clear warning to all trusts in their area of the danger of suicide posed by ligature points covered by suspended ceilings in psychiatric units. The information on which the notices were based appears to have come from NHS Estates, as indicated in the 2001 NIAIC report, which stated:
  "Following a number of reports received by NHS Estates concerning suicides and attempted suicides by hanging where access to a point of ligature has been gained by the removal of ceiling tiles from a suspended ceiling, NIAIC issued Safety Notice … alerting … organisations of the … risks."
  I understand that it is the statutory responsibility of the NHS Estates department to ensure that all alerts or warnings received from individual trusts or regions are passed on. I also understand that the warnings issued in Northern Ireland and Scotland were fully compliant with the procedure that requires information to be passed on to NHS Estates.
  It has been confirmed to the Goffs that no warning was issued in England. Peter Goff has explained his feelings to me as follows:
  "In September 2003 my son died as a result of an incident involving a ligature point behind a suspended ceiling in the bathroom of a psychiatric unit, while supposedly on observation as a potential suicide risk. Both his family as active carers and staff in the unit … who had a formal duty of care for him, assumed the physical environment in the bathroom posed 'no known hazard' when in fact NHS Estates had been fully aware of the risk posed by suspended ceilings for over 2 years … and had the responsibility for informing English Health Trusts."
  He is particularly concerned that, despite representations, that still seems to be the case. On 1 March, the Goffs contacted me and wrote to NHS

  525
  Estates in Leeds. I wrote to NHS Estates in Leeds, too. The reply to me of 9 March from the head of engineering, Mr. Kerr, said:
  "it is not appropriate for us to send you a copy of our response".
  However, Mr. and Mrs. Goff did receive a reply, dated 9 March, which they immediately passed to me. In it, Mr. Kerr says:
  "Our guidance makes it clear that each individual body is responsible for carrying out its own risk assessment and deciding what action it needs to take in the light of that assessment to minimise and … eliminate risk. Each trust has a responsibility for ensuring a safe environment."
  He goes on to quote guidance on suspended ceilings in medium secure psychiatric units dated 1993, but the unit that we are concerned about is not a medium secure unit; it is an acute unit. He then indicates that guidance will be issued to the NHS "as quickly as possible".
  Not unnaturally, the Goffs were not satisfied with that because the letter contains no explanation of how Scotland and Northern Ireland issued safety notices in 2001 but England did not. In further correspondence, Mr. Kerr of NHS Estates has had to admit that the 1993 document to which he referred
  "is not an appropriate reference document in this context";
  that the history was that, after receiving two reports of near misses, the Scottish authority issued a safety notice in June 2001 warning of the danger posed by ligature points under suspended ceilings; and that copies were sent to NHS Estates and to Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, they acted immediately, issued a notice and copied in NHS Estates, so NHS Estates was sent notices from Scotland and from Northern Ireland that were not acted on. Mr. Kerr's response is:
  "Scottish Healthcare Supplies advise us that they forwarded a copy of their notice … to NHS Estates. A search of NHS Estates records has not identified receipt of the notice.
  NHS Estates has no record of having received the NIAIC"—the Northern Ireland authority—
  "safety notice".
  In a later phone call, Mr. Goff was told that the two documents must have been "lost in the post".
  The questions for the Minister are as follows. Has a safety warning notice yet been issued to all trusts in England? How was it that the organisation responsible thought that a 1993 document about a different kind of unit covered the point? Is she satisfied with the procedures that are in place within NHS Estates to log all incoming post and to ensure that it is forwarded promptly to the official for action?
  It seems that the Scottish and Northern Ireland notices would have been sent to the Medical Devices Agency of the NHS but that its procedure is that any notice that refers to a non-device matter is routinely destroyed. Is that a sensible policy? Would the Minister care to comment on that? Can she explain how the Scottish notice explains that it was
  "following a number of reports received by NHS Estates"
  that the Scottish notice was issued, whereas NHS Estates denies all knowledge of such incidents? Is she happy with the systems in place for the dissemination of best safety practice between acute mental health units in England? Will she instigate a full investigation into the
  526
  issuing of safety notices and the procedures to be adopted, so that we can ensure that these problems are addressed?
  Finally, does the Minister understand that, for Mr. and Mrs. Goff, the key issue is to ensure as far as possible that others do not suffer such tragedy and that a first incident of serious mental ill health should not lead to a death?
  6.10 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on securing the debate. He is absolutely right to raise in the House the tragic case of his constituent. I should like to offer my very sincere condolences to the family of Tim Goff who, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned today, died in hospital while an in-patient at Lister hospital in September last year. His family has my heartfelt sympathy.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Goff was admitted on 15 June last year as an informal mental health patient to the Lister hospital. On 6 September last year, tragically, he committed suicide. Let me emphasise that both the hospital and the Department of Health need to learn from serious incidents such as this.
  It might be helpful if I set out the actions carried out by Hertfordshire partnership trust since this tragic incident. There is a detailed protocol to be followed in the event of a serious incident, which initially requires a detailed local clinical review into the circumstances of the incident. This was carried out by Hertfordshire partnership trust and was completed on 15 October 2003. It recommended a higher level in-depth inquiry, so a panel review has been set up.
  The panel review, which is ongoing, includes an independent expert consultant psychiatrist, and has terms of reference that have been agreed between the trust and, I am assured, Tim Golfs parents. In particular the panel has been asked to identify lessons that could reduce any risk for patients in the care of the trust and to make recommendations about how that can be achieved.
  I am aware also that an inquest has been opened into Mr. Golfs death and has been adjourned while the coroner investigates further. In addition, Hertfordshire partnership trust has responded by undertaking a review of its own observation policy within the trust services and intends to implement the recommendations. All recommendations coming out of the inquiry and the inquest will be carefully considered to ensure that lessons are learned.
  The hon. Gentleman has referred to the issue regarding the alert notice sent out by Scotland and Northern Ireland in 2001 regarding suspended ceilings. This alert focused on suspended ceilings and ligature points and instructed chief executives to ensure that the alert was brought to the immediate attention of staff to take appropriate action to make safe unsupervised areas with such ceilings used by patients considered to be at high risk of suicide.
  The hon. Gentleman is right that NHS Estates believes that it did not receive the alert. Thanks to the work of Mr. and Mrs. Goff and the hon. Gentleman, NHS Estates has now been made aware of the alert and, on 18 March, the relevant alert was sent to trusts in England.

  527
  Obviously, I want to make sure that best practice is disseminated between departments so that prompt action can be taken. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that as a result of this incident we are reviewing the protocol to ensure that everything is being done so that when there are such alerts they are communicated as quickly as possible. That will mean that many of the questions that he has raised—such as why the incident happened and why the alert was not sent out immediately—can be considered as part of the review of our protocols. In addition, as part of our consideration of how we can share best practice in the way that the hon. Gentleman discussed, NHS Estates will be part of a safety alert broadcast system throughout England, so that we can do everything that we can to promote safety throughout the health service.
  As part of our wider commitment to ensuring patient safety, we created the National Patient Safety Agency in July 2001 to enable us to co-ordinate the entire country's efforts in reporting and, more importantly, in learning from mistakes and problems that affect patient safety. The system that we had until recently was effective in making sure that local inquiries were carried out and local lessons learned, but we want to have a robust system that can ensure that when local inquiries have reported, their reports are gathered together at central level. We can then examine those incidents and send information from them back to local areas, ensuring that lessons are learned from incidents such as this one. Instead of lessons perhaps remaining at local level, we can then ensure that there is proper national consideration of what has happened.
  The National Patient Safety Agency has already identified patient safety in acute mental health settings as a priority area in its mental health programme. We will be launching a major initiative on that in May. Its aim will be to reduce the risk of suicide, self-harm, violence, aggression, racial harassment and abuse. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that as part of that initiative we will certainly look at what can be learned from the incident that he has brought to our attention.
  The National Patient Safety Agency has also developed a national reporting and learning system to promote comprehensive national learning about safety incidents. That is part of the need that I mentioned earlier to provide a way of gathering information so that it can be put together centrally. We can then provide feedback on the services provided and identify the issues that need to be considered. Officials from the National Patient Safety Agency are meeting NHS Estates and other experts specifically to discuss ligature points.
  To ensure safety, it is obviously vital that in-patient units where the most vulnerable in our society are cared for are safe, therapeutic and supportive. That of course includes doing everything that we can to reduce the risk of suicide. We in the Department of Health strongly support the national confidential inquiry report into suicide and homicide by people with mental illness. That inquiry and its recommendations are crucial to gaining a
  528
  better understanding of the circumstances surrounding suicide when people are under the care of our mental health services.
  The National Institute for Mental Health in England recently published an audit toolkit to help local services to measure progress in implementing the recommendations of the inquiry report. We also recognise the importance of the physical environment in providing psychiatric in-patient care, and we are committed to a programme of modernisation, backed up by substantial investment, so that we can improve psychiatric wards and in-patient care.
  However, there is no doubt that we need to do more to review the physical environment of in-patient settings, and to make the necessary changes in order to reduce access to the means of suicide, and to avoid tragedies such as the one we are debating today. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to make this a priority by looking at the physical environment and at the improvements that we need to make within psychiatric in-patient settings.
  It is very difficult to find the right words to give comfort in such tragic situations, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman and Mr. and Mrs. Goff in particular will accept that I am very aware of all that they have done to ensure that we in the Department of Health are aware of what happened and can learn lessons from it.
  Mr. Heald: It is clear that a lot of activity is going on that, one hopes, will lead to results. One concern is that the logging of the post coming into NHS Estates from Northern Ireland and Scotland seems not to have been effective in ensuring that the documents from the two authorities made their way to the relevant official, and that the safety notice was then issued. Will the office procedures of NHS Estates be improved? Such a reassurance would give us some comfort that if an incident in another part of the United Kingdom gives rise to concern in future, NHS Estates will know about it and be on to it, and action will be taken.
  Ms Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to look at the system for logging such information. As I said, we intend to examine the protocols for exchanging information, which will include considering how notes are logged, and ensuring that they are not destroyed if a time lapse occurs. The matter is under review, and I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman—who can in turn contact Mr. and Mrs. Goff—about the arrangements that we can set in train to ensure that such information is properly logged and passed on to the relevant person.
  I repeat my tribute to the work undertaken by Mr. and Mrs. Goff to ensure that we learn lessons from what has happened. I can assure them and the hon. Gentleman that I undertake to do all that I can to support their work, so that, as the hon. Gentleman said, we can avoid such tragedies in future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Six o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Credit Card Charges
[Relevant documents: First Report from the Treasury Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 125, and the Responses thereto, HC 431.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Paul Clark.]
2.30 pm
Mr. John McFall: It is a pleasure to be introducing the Treasury Committee report on transparency of credit card charges. The report has had quite a big effect on people in the industry by pointing out what the agenda should be. I should like to remind the Chamber of the origins of our investigations. In our report on banking and small businesses, published in July 2002, we concluded that there was a "lack of transparency" in the credit and charge card industry, which acts
"against meaningful competition and is therefore against consumers' interest"
and that
"for individuals to understand interest rate calculations requires an unreasonable time and effort".
We returned to the issue of credit cards in July 2003 to examine transparency and inconsistent practices in that market in the context of concerns about the build-up of personal debt. We took evidence from consumer groups, credit and store card issuers and the Association for Payment Clearing Services. In October we held a hearing with the five chief executives of the largest credit card issuers, which represent nearly 70 per cent. of the market.
Our findings indicated that there are many problems with transparency in the credit card market and, with the exception of one issuer, Nationwide, no progress had been made since our report in 2002. We looked at a number of problems in the industry. First, important information is buried in the small print and written in technical jargon, which makes it extremely difficult to compare cards. Providers are allowed to calculate the annual percentage rate, the figure most commonly used by consumers to compare cards, in more than one way. The true cost to the consumer of different cards is concealed behind complex interest rate calculation methods, not taking account of the APR, and seemingly unreasonable charges are levied which are sometimes not specified in advance. There are serious problems in the store card market due to lack of transparency.
Some of those problems represent a regulatory framework that is comprehensively out of date; indeed, we have been waiting over 30 years for the review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I see, to my left, the Messiah coming, in the form of the Minister. I hope that his tablets are clear because he has a lot to answer for. The regulatory framework is so far out of date that there has been no impetus for the industry to improve matters. As Gary Hoffman, the chief executive of Barclaycard, acknowledged, the Committee's inquiry has been a wake-up call for the industry.
144WH
We have now seen some improvements in the industry with the implementation of the summary box, giving consumers clearer information on key terms and conditions. The summary box has been introduced in credit and store card literature; that has to be welcomed. We have the promise of a single method of APR calculation to be introduced by October 2004, and it will be for the Minister to clarify that point when he sums up. There have also been warnings for consumers about the consequences of making only the minimum repayment.
The Office of Fair Trading has taken action against Barclaycard over misleading advertising material and it has investigated the store card sector. It concluded that there are serious questions about competition and referred the industry to the Competition Commission. The inquiry started with the Select Committee and has ended up with the Competition Commission. I congratulate my colleagues on the Committee and the staff for their work towards that end, because it is a very significant victory.
I mentioned that more remains to be done; for example, the use of larger type, the inclusion of scenarios in the summary box, and the provision of clearer comparable information and monthly statements. We also need further transparency, more responsible marketing practices and, possibly, standardisation of complex interest rate calculation methods. There are opportunities for further progress over the next few months, and I hope that that can be achieved. The banking code is being reviewed, and with the review of the Consumer Credit Act being undertaken by the Minister and the Department of Trade and Industry, we may have an opportunity to introduce new regulations on advertising, the form and content of credit agreements, and the standardisation of APR calculations.
We shall continue to work with the industry, the DTI and the OFT to spur on the necessary improvements. The message from today's debate is that this is a continuing inquiry by the Treasury Committee, and our business will not be finished until the industry gets itself into shape. If that means industry representatives regularly meeting the Committee in the most convivial circumstances, we will be delighted to invite them, so that we achieve a result. We hope in July or perhaps in September to invite industry leaders—the chief executives of the banks and others—back to the Committee to see exactly what progress has been made.
With regard to the summary box, the Consumers Association told us that there is huge choice, but it is not always easy for consumers to exercise choice if they cannot compare and contrast cards and work out which are best for them. Last July, when industry representatives appeared before us, we challenged them to agree proposals for the summary box over the next few months, before a hearing with the chief executives of the five largest credit card issuers. I have to say that the industry did move on that, and we congratulate it on doing so, but the devil is in the detail, and that is what we shall examine over the coming months.
It is often difficult for trade associations to negotiate agreements on such matters without some such external influence. The Committee's investigation was instrumental in securing agreement on the summary box in an appropriate time frame and ensuring that

145WH
consumers have not had to wait too long for that vital information. MBNA, one of the largest credit card providers, told us:
"The Treasury Select Committee focus on transparency has solidified industry agreement on the Box—and we believe that this is potentially of great benefit to consumers."
The issues that still garner our attention are the format, the placing and the print size. I think that we wanted an 18-point font size. I had a meeting the other day with Mr. Chris Pearson, Ms Sandra Quinn and colleagues from APACS and I was heartened to hear of the progress being made. However, on print size, there are still a number of problems to overcome, so after the meeting I decided to write to the major credit card providers to ask what their practices are and what has changed for them in the past few months, and to tell us, before they appear before the Committee again in September, what they are working on. That will enable us to have a positive encounter.
Mr. James Plaskitt: My hon. Friend is rightly outlining the difficulties that the industry is having in reaching agreement on the summary box. When that finally happens, we may hear ringing declarations that it represents a great victory for consumers, but does he agree that reaching an agreement and implementing it will not solve the industry's problems and will be only the beginning of the solution?
Mr. McFall: I agree that reaching agreement will be a victory in itself, but there are a number of areas that we have to address. Summary boxes are not the beginning and end of the process, and I shall mention other aspects.
Many groups have called for the inclusion in summary boxes of illustrative borrowing scenarios showing the cost of cards in pounds and pence. I detect in some parts of the industry a reluctance to go down that path, and I am looking for improvements. The Committee also wants summary boxes to appear on monthly statements, so that consumers are continually aware of the key financial information about the card that they are using. That will enable them to compare products and determine where they can get the best deal. HBOS has already taken steps to include the summary box in monthly statements, and other banks, including the Royal Bank of Scotland, already provide most of the information on statements. I hope that lenders tackle that issue during the current review of banking procedure.
There is also the question of annual percentage rates. The Banking Code Standards Board told us that its research revealed that consumers tend to have a sketchy understanding of what APR means but use it as an all-purpose basis of comparison between products. I have a special message for Mr. John Tiner of the Financial Services Authority, because the authority's website states:
"You do not need to know how to work out an APR. The important thing is that APRs show the cost of borrowing on a standard basis. So you can compare one APR with another."
146WH
Wrong, wrong and wrong again. I would like to think that by the end of the week, Mr. Tiner will have got his skates on and that message will have been taken off the website. In our leisure time this weekend my colleagues and I may visit the site to see what has happened.
As we learned during the inquiry, legal ambiguities in the regulations mean that the APR, the figure most commonly used by consumers to compare products, may be calculated in more than one way. That information was largely hidden until it was exposed by the Treasury Committee. Banks and credit card companies were delighted to go along with that practice, because it caused them little hassle and perhaps gave them extra profits. However, it does the consumer down, and it must change.
The Minister has a big responsibility on this matter. I hear that the industry is lobbying the DTI and trying to soften him up to ensure that the changes have been implemented not by October 2004 but by October 2005. I will hang on my hon. Friend's words when he winds up this debate to find out whether we will get the APR change. During our inquiry my colleagues and I were insistent that that change should be made as soon as possible, and the Minister was supportive when he gave evidence. He should not listen to the industry on this point, and he should forget about the technical complexities because the industry has had decades to make the change. We want it made by October 2004, and we will revisit the issue.
The Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I will comment on the APR in my winding-up speech, but my hon. Friend knows that it is not the only aspect of the products and hidden charges which confuses consumers.
Mr. McFall: I agree entirely. We have a full agenda to be working on, and other issues, such as interest rate calculation, are important. However, if the APR is being used as a tool for comparison, it must be legitimate. At the moment, it is an illegitimate tool, which is unsatisfactory. As I mentioned, the target date was October 2004, and I am looking for confirmation of that.
In addition to the interest rate, we found that a key determinant of the overall cost of credit is the method that credit card firms use to calculate the interest. That covers such factors as when lenders begin to charge interest on purchases made and when they stop charging interest after a payment is received from the customer. However, the Consumers Association identified 10 different methods of interest rate calculation currently in use in the UK credit market. It estimated that a series of transactions could cost up to 76 per cent. more on one card than another, depending on the method used.
The industry told us that interest rate calculation is a competition issue, but in evidence to us, John Vickers, chairman of the Office of Fair Trading, told us:
"If a product characteristic is invisible to consumers then it cannot be a dimension of competition".
The entire Treasury Committee agrees with that. In the anecdotal evidence that I have built up over past months, chief executives tell me, in their confessional approach to me, that the competition issue is a smokescreen and that people are making, to use the

147WH
slang phrase, a quick buck out of it at the expense of the customer. That practice must stop, and the DTI must get on the chase.
Another issue about which we were quite exercised was transactions and penalty charges. As we know, credit card companies often levy charges if a borrower pays late or exceeds their credit limit. However, concern was expressed at the Committee's hearings that often the level of such charges is not made clear to the cardholder; in many cases that information is buried in the small print. We saw one card agreement that said:
"You agree to pay us a charge if we do not receive your minimum payment by the due date."
There was no reference to how much the charge would be. However, there have been some improvements. Such behaviour will not occur in future as lenders will have to list all charges in the summary box.
When we asked the industry about the issues, representatives of Lloyds TSB told us:
"Our charges reflect the costs we incur when customers fail to make payment or fall into arrears".
MBNA told us that its charges
"represented a genuine pre-estimate of part of the costs incurred and loss suffered by MBNA".
No company provided any information or figures to back up those assertions. Indeed, Barclaycard refused to provide any further information on the revenue raised from penalty fees, even in confidence. Barclaycard representatives told us that since they
"do not release this information in detail to our share holders via our accounts",
they were unable to supply such information to the Committee. We have therefore seen no evidence from lenders that transaction and penalty fees represent a fair reflection of the costs involved.
Lenders must justify their charges, and the report called on lenders to place in the public domain figures on the amounts raised from penalty charges. We are very pleased that the OFT is currently investigating the level of fees charged, but if that information is not in the public domain, the companies are open to the charge of ripping off customers. On the arbitrary imposition of a £25 levy, why should it be £25? In the view of some credit cardholders who are more in debt than others, a £25 levy could be very detrimental, compared with its effect on others who can afford it. It borders on the issue of over-indebtedness and poverty. I am making a plea for those companies—Barclays and others—to make public the amount of money made from charges. We do not want that to conflict with their commercial confidentiality, but it is a basic issue that needs attention.
We also identified some marketing practices that gave us considerable cause for concern. There is the well known story about "Monty", the dog in Manchester that had a £10,000 credit limit. Mr. Fred Goodwin duly apologised for that, although he did not tell us whether the dog had chewed up the card. A number of very disturbing examples were given to us by, among others, citizens advice bureaux. One concerned a client on income support who had run up a credit card debt to pay for his drug addiction. He had been resident in a rehabilitation clinic for six months when he received an unsolicited credit card application form there. He completed it and the credit card company issued him a
148WH
card. He told the citizens advice bureau that it was fortunate that a member of the clinic staff had intercepted the card, otherwise he would have been tempted to use it to buy more drugs.
Such marketing practices should be not only condemned, but outlawed. The companies have made insufficient progress in that area. Mr. Hoffman, the chief executive of Barclaycard, said following our inquiry that issuers were looking at their marketing practices more closely than ever. Again, however, much work needs to be done.
We also examined marketing material from Barclaycard for its so-called "0 per cent. for ever" offer. The offer proved to be so complex that even the redoubtable Mr. Matthew Barrett, the chief executive officer of Barclays Bank, appeared unable fully to understand its consequences. Given his inability to do so, we recruited Dr. Robert Hunt of the institute of mathematical sciences at Cambridge university to help us understand how much the offer could cost. The OFT also looked at it and considered the marketing material to be "highly misleading" and in breach of the Consumer Credit Act. Barclaycard subsequently withdrew the material.
John Vickers, the OFT chairman, said:
"Barclaycard promoted this product as offering the opportunity to borrow at 0 per cent. interest forever. It does no such thing. The promotion in these terms has therefore been stopped."
Why do we need to wait until a company of the size and reputation of Barclays introduces such an offer, only to find, shamefacedly, that it must withdraw it? If people do their research properly, such cases should not arise. Again, that points to the work that the Committee has undertaken and to how fertile are the areas that we have investigated.
A lot more information is needed on over-indebtedness. I agree that it affects only a small proportion of the population. The majority of people handle credit responsibly and avoid becoming overcommitted. However, there appears to be a small but significant minority for whom servicing debts has become a problem. It is important to recognise that over-indebtedness can have a devastating effect on people's lives. The Government and the credit card industry need to work harder to prevent over-indebtedness.
Mr. Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend is coming to a crucial point. The focus of the report was on the credit card industry, but over-indebtedness can hit anybody at any time, for a variety of reasons. My hon. Friend will no doubt welcome the Government's establishment of the over-indebtedness advisory group and a cross-ministerial team to look at the issues. They include not only those arising from the credit card industry, but how the Government and local government deal with the collection of council tax and other taxes, and how such matters can affect over-indebtedness, which is a massive issue.
Mr. McFall: I agree that over-indebtedness is a massive issue. I mentioned earlier that credit cards are a positive source of finance for many people. The Committee has considered over-indebtedness and taken it up with Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of

149WH
England, among others. We asked the Bank of England to look into the issue and give us more information on it. We also took evidence from those working on the ground. Citizens Advice, for instance, told us that
"credit cards are the single largest debt by number".
If I remember rightly—my hon. Friends can correct me if I am wrong—the number of inquiries about consumer debate received by the bureaux has increased by 46 per cent. in the last three years. Over-indebtedness is therefore a growing issue to which we must pay attention.
I remind the Minister, in a light way, that the DTI undertook many inquiries and investigations before his time. Indeed, after three years of inquiry after inquiry on over-indebtedness, the Department undertook one more inquiry, the result of which was that another inquiry was needed. We do not want more inquiries; we want action.
The report found that many people were
"sleep walking into a situation of overcommitment."
That points to the fact that all credit card issuers should engage in responsible lending and provide customers with clear information so that they understand the consequences of the debt that they take on.
Another problem is that of minimum repayments. Customers receive monthly accounts that state that the minimum repayment is £2, £3 or whatever. However, we uncovered the fact that if borrowers paid back their debt at that rate, it could take as long as 22 years. Companies have a responsibility to give consumers a health warning saying, "If you pay back at this rate, it will take you x number of years." That is not too much to ask, and the DTI must press the industry on that point.
I turn now to the issue of inadequate credit checking and data sharing, which has a bearing on the tragic incidents of over-indebtedness and excessive numbers of credit cards which we have read about over the past few months. It has become clear that the credit checking system must be improved. Many lenders do not share positive information with credit reference agencies. That can make it difficult for customers to get credit elsewhere and, with the growing use of risk-based pricing, customers could be excluded from taking advantage of lower rates offered by competitors. All lenders must share positive and negative data with credit reference agencies. Someone could be out of their depth, with 17 or 18 credit cards, but if they were making the minimum repayment on each one, nothing would show up at the credit reference agency, so there would be no assessment of how likely they were to sleepwalk into disaster. That must be addressed.
A further issue is the problem of unsolicited increases in credit limits. The Consumers Association told us that
"it appears a common practice for card issuers to raise credit limits without first consulting the customer or even in some cases credit histories."
That practice tends to push people towards excessive spending and is therefore not in their interests or those of their families.
Finally, there is the issue of store cards, which proved fertile ground for the Committee. We uncovered what we described as a "cosy relationship" between store card
150WH
providers and stores which results in card users not gaining the full facts about costs. We saw advertising leaflets for a store card which did not contain the APR—for the Minister's information, that was legal under the outdated framework of the Consumer Credit Act.
We also noted that consumers were not allowed to take away application forms. The credit card providers, especially GE Consumer Finance, got into a massive fankle on that subject in front of the Committee, telling us that the law did not allow people to take the forms away. However, we hauled in the OFT and DTI and asked, "What does the law say?" The law makes it clear that people should be allowed to take forms away. In fact, some Committee staff went to get an application form and were told that they were not allowed to take them away. That was nonsense and had to be changed, but it is sad that it required a House of Commons Select Committee to unearth that practice and change it.
We also saw welcome packs and monthly statements that contained no mention of the high interest rate that would be charged. Those rates tend to be between 28 and 30 per cent. In today's environment, how is it to anyone's advantage to pay 30 per cent. interest? I suggest that retail stores have slid out of their responsibility. It would be great if the chief executive of Laura Ashley, Debenhams or House of Fraser appeared before the Committee. We could ask them what their social responsibility to their customers is. Why, when the Bank of England base rate is below 4 per cent., are they allowing credit card charges of 30 per cent. to be imposed on their customers? They assure the quality of the products on their shelves, whether they be clothing, china or perfume, for their customers. Why can they not assure the quality of the financial products that are in their stores? They have a long way to go on that. I would like to see the day when the charges that people pay in stores are the same as the typical charges paid elsewhere.
Mr. Plaskitt: Does my hon. Friend recall that while we were examining the issue of store cards, and taking evidence on the matter, we received confirmation from GE that it had not reviewed or altered the interest rates on its cards since 1999, despite the fact that base rates have fallen substantially since then?
Mr. McFall: Exactly. My hon. Friend questioned the representative of the company about that and he was, to put it politely, flummoxed.
The Committee stressed the need for transparency and competitiveness. There must be transparency for there to be competitiveness. Even if there are 1,600 credit card suppliers in the market, the market is not competitive if information is not shared with the customer. There is no level playing field. The Select Committee is examining transparency and competitiveness, and that will inform our further inquiries.
These matters are important for the DTI, and I am keen to hear the Minister's comments on a range of issues: the summary box, transparency, credit reference agencies, the OFT's powers to monitor consumer credit licensing, and investigation of the payment protection insurance areas. I would also like an explanation of what happened to the CAT standards for credit cards proposed in January 2001.

151WH
The industry should adopt a positive attitude towards greater transparency in the current review of the banking code, and it should work on developing scenarios that will show the cost of cards in pounds and pence for consumers, for inclusion in the summary boxes. It should introduce a minimum size of font for summary boxes, include the summary boxes in monthly statements, develop further transparency in the standardisation of complex methods of interest calculation, engage in more responsible lending practices, base lending on income and credit commitments rather than on payment history, and place restrictions on unsolicited increases in credit limits. It should also publish information on the revenues raised from transaction and penalty fees and ensure that application of those fees does not cause debts to become unaffordable, and it should improve the transparency of risk-based pricing.
We have a hefty agenda that we are addressing with vigour. That vigour has increased as the months have passed. We look forward to engaging with the industry again, whether it be in July or September, and with the Minister, to ensure that a fair deal for consumers is achieved. If it is achieved, that will be through the Treasury Committee, the DTI and the industry working together in favour of the customer.
3.3 pm
Mr. James Plaskitt: It is almost a year since the Treasury Committee began its inquiry into transparency in credit cards. It is interesting that during that year the general debate on, and public interest in, the issue of indebtedness and household indebtedness have increased sharply.
I shall lay a number of charges against the credit card industry. However, it is fair to say at the outset of my speech that one thing that for which the industry cannot and should not be blamed is the general increase in household indebtedness, which has become a concern. I am also happy to acknowledge that credit cards perform an important service for the majority of those who hold and use them. They are part and parcel of managing our personal finances, and it is difficult to envisage how we would operate without them.
Although I acknowledge their importance in the world of finance, as we took evidence for the inquiry, the fact emerged clearly that there are some serious charges to be levelled against credit card companies. They are clearly guilty of irresponsible lending to some people, and I think that they are guilty of supplying misinformation to almost all their customers. It is beyond argument that they are guilty of a lack of transparency, and in respect of some products, albeit by no means across the board, they are guilty of sharp practice—a point that I shall illustrate later.
In such an industry climate, some people will, sadly, be caught in the credit card web. We all know what that climate is. I am sure that I am not the only person in the Chamber who is bombarded by offers from credit card companies: I have had about six in the past month at my private constituency address, and a similar number at my flat in London. I do not know whether I am being targeted as a member of the Treasury Committee, but I do not think that I am alone.
The junk mail that comes through my door from credit card companies is stuffed with misleading promotional information, and it is evident that the
152WH
industry carries out inadequate credit checks. Sadly, there have recently been tragic consequences when individuals caught in the credit card web have become deeply mired in debt. I do not lay all the blame for that at the door of credit card companies: individuals have some responsibility, which they must face. However, given what is happening, the rapidity with which the stuff in question is sent out and the misleading promotional material that goes with it, it is all too easy for someone in financial difficulty to be lured in, and some responsibility for that rests with the credit card companies.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, the industry needs to get its house in order. It is the responsibility of Parliament, Government and the regulators to be active in ensuring that that happens. We must do all that we can to end the industry's opportunities to exploit vulnerable people. We must ensure that the industry gives all credit card consumers a fair deal across the board. The inescapable conclusion is that they are not getting that now. What I have seen in the year in which we have been engaged in the inquiry leads me not to trust the industry to put its house in order on its own, I am not prepared to rely on Government exhortation of the industry, and I do not believe that voluntary codes alone will do the job. The industry has shown, in my view, a pretty contemptible attitude towards the public and consumer interest.
I said that I would give some of the worst examples of sharp practice. My hon. Friend partly pre-empted me by drawing attention to Barclaycard's infamous "0 per cent. for ever" offer, but it is worth examining briefly how misleading that promotional material was. With that offer, people were encouraged to transfer balances from another card, and those balances would enjoy the 0 per cent. interest rate. However, the terms and conditions went much further. The transferred balance qualified for the 0 per cent. interest rate only if a minimum amount of new consumption was levied on that card each and every month: the card required people to purchase £50-worth of goods a month to sustain the 0 per cent. on the transferred balance. Therefore, if someone transferred £3,000 from another card to the 0 per cent. Barclaycard in order to enjoy that 0 per cent. rate, and committed themselves to spending the £50 a month on new purchases but made only the minimum monthly repayment, by the time they had paid off the transferred balances— because the minimum payments went first on those, and never paid off the new consumption—they would have clocked up another
£2,850 of debt with Mr. Barrett's card and would have been charged 17.9 per cent. APR on that. That is how grotesquely misleading the "0 per cent. for ever" offer was. It took OFT intervention on the back of the Committee raising awareness of the offer before action was taken. In the end, the card was withdrawn.
I drew a second example to the Committee's attention—I am afraid that it, too, comes out of Mr. Barrett's stable. The Monument card revealed another example of what I can describe only as sharp practice. It, too, was promoted heavily on the basis of 0 per cent. interest on transferred balances and the attractiveness of no annual fee, and all the promotional material clearly suggested that the interest rate was a competitive 16.9 per cent. So far so good, but the problem was that someone could send off the application form believing

153WH
that those were the terms and conditions, and discover only when the card was in their hand and they were ready to start using it that the interest rate applicable to their card was not 16.9 per cent., but 31.9 per cent. as a result of the company doing personal pricing. Someone would not know that that was going to be the case unless they took the trouble to read some exceedingly small print on the back of the terms and conditions. No possibility of the higher interest rate was clearly evident on the promotional front page of the offer. Risk-based pricing is therefore among the sharp practices that we must consider.
The third main example relates to deceptions in respect of the APR, to which my hon. Friend referred. We considered the position of someone who lined up four well known credit cards with exactly the same nominal APR—exactly the same interest rate—made purchases of exactly the same value with them, and proceeded to repay the debt with the same profile on each card. It would not be unreasonable to suppose that in those circumstances the charge for the credit would be the same for all four cards, but that was not so. The actual cash cost of the credit on the four cards varied by as much as 40 per cent. because of the small print in the repayment terms.
Sadly, while all those misleading offers were pouring through people's letterboxes and the risk-based pricing and distortions in APR were going on, all we heard from the regulators was a very muted "tut, tut." However, in the face of all the pressure, the industry has seized on the Committee's suggestion that it introduce the summary box. I welcome that: it is high time that that step forward was taken. However, as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend, even if the industry reaches an agreement on the summary box and it is implemented throughout the industry, it will be but a small step towards solving the evident problems that emerged in the course of our inquiry. If solving the problems in the industry is a journey of a mile, the summary box represents but a few yards. We need to keep it in that perspective.
The sending out of credit card cheques is another industry practice that shows no sign of abating. Summary boxes would not even begin to touch that very serious problem in the industry. Credit card cheques are sent to about 16 per cent. of households—5 million households—and almost every dispatch of such cheques is unsolicited. Evidence suggests that in the sending of cheques there is some concentration on households that are experiencing some form of financial difficulty. The task force on over-indebtedness has considered the issue and found that only a third of people who received cheques in the post realised that they would incur interest right from the point of cashing them. We talked to APACS about that and it told us that it would make improvements that would be in place before March 2004. Interestingly, this morning I received an e-mail from APACS encouraging me to believe that the problems will be resolved. It said that checks would be made before cheques were sent out and the applicable interest rate would be indicated. APACS will refer these improvements for inclusion in the banking code. Those are small, but welcome steps.
154WH
I have been looking for evidence of improvement in relation to credit card cheques. So far, there is none. I have been receiving credit card cheques regularly—I imagine that most hon. Members do. The most recent came only last week from Alliance and Leicester—the fifth time in recent months that it has sent me unsolicited credit card cheques. If I were unwise enough to bank them, interest would begin to accrue immediately, even before I went out to spend the money, but I have to work hard to find that out. The information is contained on the letter offering the credit card cheques, but it is in 8-point font at the very bottom of the page. Even with reading glasses, it is quite hard to spot. That crucial part of the deal and the bit that costs the customer money right from day one is not promoted, but almost concealed in the small print. I am also told in the same small print that I have less protection under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 if I use a credit card cheque than if I use the credit card. I am not told what protection it is that I have not got: I am simply told that I have less of it than I would have if I were using a credit card.
The introductory rate on the credit card cheque is 3.9 per cent. in the case of the offer from Alliance and Leicester, and is valid for just six weeks. What is the rate thereafter? To my complete astonishment I found that there is no information about the APR that applies to the credit card cheques in the accompanying letter and flier or the cheques themselves. I would have no clue if I started to use these cheques what the interest would be. The attached slip encourages me to use the cheques to pay utility bills. That is exactly the sort of web that I was talking about earlier. Anyone facing difficulties paying a utility bill who risks having their supply cut off if they do not pay it might be tempted to use these unsolicited cheques, without realising the cash and financial consequences.
Have we seen the improvements that APACS told us would be in place by March 2004? No. The fact that banks are issuing credit card cheques now— admittedly the example I am quoting is from last week, but that is pretty current—with no printed statement of the APR on them is unacceptable. That should be illegal. If credit card cheques are being issued unsolicited, that too should be illegal. I beg to differ at this point with APACS' promises that things are going to improve.
I have been studying the White Paper "Fair, Clear and Competitive", looking at the changes that can be made in the regulations. Paragraph 5.62 itemises offers that could be regarded as constituting irresponsible lending. They include unsolicited issuing of cheques that can be used to draw on credit card accounts. I suggest that we do not need to debate the matter any more, because the practice already exists, the White Paper defines this as irresponsible lending, it is still happening, and it must stop. The industry tells us that it will try to deal with the problem by implementing a better code of practice, but I have little hope. The industry has had its chance to face up to the misuse of the credit card cheque. It is still behaving irresponsibly, and voluntary codes will not do. We should therefore call time on unsolicited credit card cheques. The practice should become illegal.
My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee drew attention to store cards, which are one of the worst aspects of the industry—they are today's designer loan sharks. The interest rate on all of them is about 30 per

155WH
cent. per annum—far in excess of the bank base rate—and has not been reduced since 1999, despite the reduction in the base rate. I understand that about £5 billion a year is spent using the 21 million store cards currently in circulation, and that 14 million adults in Britain have at least one store card in their wallet or purse. The sector is riddled with sharp practice. As hon. Members have heard, the interest rates are excessive. That is not simply my hyperbole: I remember asking all the bank chief executives who gave evidence to the Select Committee to define excessive interest rates. Three out of the four could define it—unsurprisingly, Mr. Barrett could not—and said that it was somewhere in the region of 20 to 25 per cent. It is therefore not my definition that the interest rate on store cards is excessive, but that of the bank chief executives themselves. However, the interest rates on store cards remain in the 30 per cent. plus range. In addition, in that sector we find non-compliance with the advertising rules, infringement of consumer rights, and stores denying consumers their legal right to take away the credit agreement to read. The market is clearly imperfect. GE Capital dominates the market. As paragraph 118 of our report states:
"GE might be making almost twice the level of profit as a proportion of transactions compared with the market-leading credit card supplier."
The prestige stores—many of them claim to be prestige—are doing themselves no favours by using these cards and associating themselves with this sort of credit practice. I therefore welcome the OFT's decision to investigate the market and the fact that it has rightly referred it to the Competition Commission.
The OFT's report on store cards makes very interesting reading. Its findings are dressed in fairly moderate language; even so, I shall cite some of its conclusions just to underline how serious the market failure is in this respect. Paragraph 1.10 states:
"the level of interest rates on store cards does not appear to be disciplined by competitive pressure".
Paragraph 1.11 states:
"retailers and card providers between them may be able to increase their profits by lack of transparency".
Paragraph 2.17 states:
"information on the interest rate was not available in around a third of cases, while information on penalty charges was rarely available."
Finally, paragraph 5.62 concludes:
"Our analysis… suggested… that there are structural features of the market, such as incumbency advantages, switching costs and sunk investments, which prevent. restrict or distort competition in the market for the supply of store card credit services to retailers."
The OFT's findings are pretty serious and can be summed up in one phrase: the consumer is being ripped off.
The OFT made some useful recommendations on store cards, about better pre-contractual information, summary boxes and statutory warnings. That is fine as far as it goes, but I am disappointed to see no specific reference—I hope that I have not overlooked it—to store cards in the White Paper, "Fair, Clear and Competitive". The DTI seems to be relying on the general recommendations that it makes in that document as sufficient to cover the particular circumstances of store cards, but I am not entirely sure
156WH
that they will. Further discussion on codes and practices will not be enough, so I am ultimately placing my faith in the Competition Commission's findings, once it has concluded its survey on store cards. I am pretty sure that it will find evidence of an anti-competitive cartel that needs to be broken up.
Finally, I shall talk about the White Paper that the DTI has produced, which looks forward to a consumer credit market appropriate to the 21st century. It suggests that lots of the problems that the Treasury Select Committee unearthed can be addressed through secondary legislation. First, it is suggested that problems with credit advertising can be resolved though secondary legislation. However, I wonder exactly what will change as a result, and I hope that the Minister will answer that point in his winding-up speech. After all, what definition of "responsible lending" will be used when implementing the White Paper's proposals? When the Minister gave evidence to the Committee in November, I put it to him, at question 1172:
"And you take the view that the 0% forever does not amount to responsible lending and the issuing of unsolicited credit card cheques does not constitute proper lending either?"
My hon. Friend replied:
"I believe that the examples you give are not what I would consider to be responsible lending."
Given that we accept, with the Minister's authority, that unsolicited credit card cheques are not responsible lending. and as we are trying to implement the White Paper's proposals, we should see an end to the unsolicited issuing of such cheques.
Secondly, the White Paper suggested that the standardisation of APR can be achieved through secondary legislation—although not, I am concerned to see, the clarification and presentation of different interest rates, or a standard way of calculating interest rates on credit cards. They are both seen as desirable objectives; they are not achievable through secondary legislation, but set next to them is the phrase "to be decided". Given that they are important reforms to be achieved, if we are going to obtain a fair deal for the customer, I am anxious to know what steps the Government will take to deliver on those essential reforms, if we cannot do it through secondary legislation. The document also suggests that the form and content of credit agreements can be settled through secondary legislation. but will that really put an end to some of the store card practices or some of the risk-based pricing practices that I have illustrated? I raised the matter with the Minister during the evidence session. I said, at question 1199:
"So not talking about particular products, but the aspect across the industry that you would want to get rid of is the idea that the interest rate that you have signed up for is not known until you have signed up?"
My hon. Friend the Minister replied:
"I would expect you to know the interest rate when you signed up."
The fact is that, at present, with risk-based pricing, many customers do not know that, so that objective has still to be achieved.
Some of those matters are to be the subject of "further consultation", but I understand from the timetable set out in the White Paper that consultation has now concluded. I hope that the Minister will be able to give

157WH
some indication of how the industry has responded and whether we can look forward to a permanent solution to these urgent problems. However, I find no commitment in the White Paper to bringing an end to the issuing of unsolicited credit card cheques. I have said before that we are all agreed that it constitutes irresponsible lending. If we do not bring it to an end, we will not have achieved responsible lending.
I accept that the White Paper is the first review of credit and competition in 30 years. As such, it is very welcome; it was badly needed. The gestation of reform is painfully slow.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I have listened with interest to the many issues raised by my hon. Friend. He should reflect on the fact that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 took six years to come to fruition. As he said, the market has evolved tremendously during the past 30 years. I acknowledge that there are questions about the timetable, but I am sure that he acknowledges some of the problems that we face.
Mr. Plaskitt: I certainly do acknowledge that. As I said, I am extremely pleased that we are undertaking a review. However, because of the pace at which the industry has changed and expanded, and given the practices that it has now been engaged in for a long time, I cannot help but think that we have waited rather too long to start a review. I am glad that we have started. However, I hope that the review will thorough and that it will be carried out as quickly as possible, not necessarily at a pace set by the industry—I know what sort of pace it would want—but a pace set by us on behalf of the consumer.
The industry is being dragged very reluctantly towards behaving responsibly. Its instinct is to do what it thinks it can get away with. The test of the Government's reform will be whether it results in the industry escaping, having thrown a few concessions to the Government and consumers en route. The alternative, through tougher regulation, is to stamp out all shady practices and put the industry's house in order, at last achieving responsible lending for all. I already detect a gap between some of the Minister's comments made in evidence to the Committee in November and the position outlined in the White Paper. If further gaps emerge between the promises given in the White Paper and what finally emerges in regulation, the industry will have won too many of the battles, and the consumer will have lost.
I am grateful that we have the opportunity to undertake a comprehensive and thorough review. It is a once-in-a-generation chance to get the legislation right and get the industry into order. I hope that we do not fluff the opportunity this time round, because what is at stake is far too important.
3.34 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I also declare that I am an unpaid board member of the Centre for Scottish Public Policy, which has received some sponsorship from Co-operative Financial Services.
158WH
As I explained to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to take part in business elsewhere in the Palace this afternoon. I apologise to hon. Members if I miss part of the debate. I hope that, with the leave of the House, that will be acceptable.
I congratulate the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), and members of the Committee not only on their work in producing the report but, more generally, on scrutinising and holding to account the financial services industry, the Government and the regulators in the interests of the consumer. They have done so continuously and in a hard-hitting and incisive way, which is particularly important when decisions are required but the complexity of the issues obscures the essential points. Of course, many in the field are quite happy to obfuscate and to prevent us from focusing on the issues that require attention.
The effectiveness of the Committee's work is shown by the voluntary response that the financial services industry has already made to some of its recommendations. Like other hon. Members in the Chamber, I have often criticised practices in the industry, and it is only right that I should recognise the changes that it has made. I agree that the introduction—it has been slow, but it is nevertheless on the way—of the summary box and of proposals for a health warning have been made in recognition of the Committee's work.
As members of the Committee have said, the Government, the regulators and Parliament need to do much more to maintain pressure on the industry to act in the interests of the consumer. I welcome the Chairman's promise—hopefully it was not a threat—that the Committee would continue to take a close interest in the issue to see whether its recommendations were put into effect.
I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) about credit card cheques. I am grateful to him, as I am sure the entire Chamber is, for sharing with us in a detailed exposé the material that he received about credit card cheques. Like him, I have come to the view that there is no way in which their marketing can be made acceptable. However one looks at the issue, the convenience to the customer on some rare occasions is vastly outweighed by the fact that such cheques encourage customers to extend their borrowing without fully appreciating the higher interest rates that they will incur. On those occasions when it might be appropriate to seek credit for a purchase, there will almost certainly be a better way of securing it than by means of a credit card cheque.
My hon. Friend gave the example of the offer that he received from Alliance and Leicester, and many other examples could be brought into the debate. Like many hon. Members, I received a briefing from Citizens Advice about the subject of today's debate. It drew attention to one of its clients, who had been sent a £200 credit card cheque with a letter advising him that the cheque was a "great way" to give his finances a boost and that all he needed to do was sign and date it and pay it into his bank account. What a great way to give one's finances a boost—borrowing money at perhaps 30 per cent. interest and putting it into a bank account that pays nothing like 30 per cent., but only half of 1 per cent., or slightly more if one is lucky.

159WH
Marketing material that relatives of mine received suggested that credit card cheques would be an ideal way of paying for a Christmas present or providing holiday cash. As one can well imagine, it would not be sensible for all but the smallest fraction of the consumer market to use a credit card cheque in that way. There is therefore a strong argument for saying that such cheques should simply not be allowed. On the assumption that the industry would not adopt such a proposal voluntarily, the regulators and the Government will have to consider ways of ensuring that change is brought about.
The comments about store cards were also well made in the report, and I welcome the points made by the Chairman of the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. Like them, I welcome the OFT investigation. I shall not repeat the points made about store cards, but in the briefings that I have had from consumer organisations, including Money Advice Scotland, store cards were identified as a particular problem. Like other Members present today, I have had personal experience of being offered such cards in a way that did not seem to give me full information about the costs that I would have incurred if I had been so foolish as to accept the offer.
One problem in the industry is that when a particular avenue is closed off by regulators, public opinion or another factor that influences companies' behaviour, there is a temptation to go along another road to try to extract money from the unwitting consumer. To some extent, that is true of business in general and will always happen. However, institutions, including major high street names with an international presence, should change their attitude, as well as individual practices, if we are to reach a situation in which they do not see the consumer as the legitimate subject of a rip-off, even if it is legally acceptable. They must change their approach, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, I believe that statutory regulation is needed to encourage a voluntary response.
One example of how some sections of industry can change their behaviour to take advantage of new opportunities was drawn to my attention in the briefing from Money Advice Scotland. It was concerned by what it described as
"the direct targeting of people in airports, who are clearly there for another purpose, i.e. to travel."
It said that it had witnessed some "heavy sales tactics" at airports, in which sales representatives approach people on their way to flights to ask them to sign up for credit cards. The would-be customer may have been travelling for some hours to get to the airport and may be about to fly. Money Advice Scotland's view is that
"there is insufficient importance paid to the fact that this will be a purchase of credit. It is made look too easy".
In many cases, there is an added incentive of receiving a free gift. People are told that if they sign up for a credit card on their way to their holiday, they can have extra money to spend and also get a free wallet, pen or filofax. In such circumstances, people are not on equal terms with the representatives who are trying to offer credit. We would not allow such a sales technique in airports or railways for other professional services, so it must be challenged. It also indicates how regulators have to move quickly to deal with new practices as they develop.
160WH
In the report, the Committee notes that
"the evidence indicates that the majority of households still deal with debt in a responsible manner and avoid becoming overcommitted".
As the Government acknowledge in their response, the general level of indebtedness has not increased substantially as a proportion of the gross incomes of the population. It is wrong to overstate the "nation in debt" line that is sometimes pedalled by the media and by Opposition parties.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I am sorry to spoil the flow of my hon. Friend's contribution. He is making a key point about disposable income, and the proportion of it that is spent on debt. My figures show that 7.1 per cent. of disposable income is now spent on interest payments, compared with a high of 15 per cent. in 1990. It will be clear later why I have made that point.
Mr. Lazarowicz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those figures, which underline the Government's economic record. It is important to make the point that, although is not a general problem for the country, over-indebtedness can be a great problem for the minority who are particularly vulnerable or who are affected by problems of debt. As we have heard today those can be very great in individual cases, many of which have arisen from, or been exacerbated by, the marketing and other business practices of lenders.
The report is about the transparency of credit card charges. That is one element of the solution to the problems that it highlights. Equally important is the drive for greater financial literacy. That is the flavour of the month, as it should be. I welcome the support of the industry and the Government in that regard. However, the Select Committee makes a valuable point when it urges the industry to increase its support for the work of citizens advice bureaux and other free money advice services. That is essential, and I know that the Government are taking suitable steps. I qualify my support by observing that, while providing a wide range of advice, we must ensure that there are not so many sources of advice that nobody knows where to go. The various services have to be co-ordinated.
We must bear in mind, as well as transparency, education and financial literacy, the barrage of publicity and marketing affecting every consumer. The industry must change its lending practices and its attitude. Above all, we need an effective and up-to-date regulatory framework. Not only must it allow us to deal with the cases that have been highlighted here and in the reports of interested groups in recent years, but it must be fast enough moving to deal with new practices and behaviour that, unless challenged at the start, will trap millions of people in unfair credit arrangements. We have all seen examples of such things in our constituencies.
I welcome the White Paper on consumer credit and urge the Government to ensure that primary legislation and the regulations necessary to put it into effect will be introduced as soon as possible. Millions of consumers cannot wait much longer.
3.49 pm
John Mann: First, I should put on record the bravery of your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in being prepared to preside in this Chamber without a security screen to protect you from the masses, and indeed from the Minister.
I also apologise. I have notified the Speaker's office and the Minister that I may need to leave, depending on how long the debate goes on. The unusual event of a ministerial visit to Bassetlaw is taking place later. It is so unusual that I am always fearful of allowing any Minister to venture on to my patch without my presence.
As it is a time for thanks, I would also like to thank the credit card industry. Over the past four weeks, the industry has saved Parliament a modicum of expense, because as I was seeking to catch up with my colleagues as a new member of the Treasury Committee, I felt it appropriate to acquire copies of the various literature and propaganda issued to entice people to use credit cards. I felt that the most appropriate way would be to write to the companies and ask for copies. However, by paying more attention to the recycling bin kindly provided by Bassetlaw council and extracting papers from it, I found that the industry has chosen to honour me by sending me a plethora of offers over the past four weeks.
I am clearly very popular. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), who has received only six such leaflets, in the past month I have received an average of more than six a week—the most on one day was four. The 11 different companies with which I have been dealing in the case of one of my constituents, which has been fairly well publicised, have all chosen to send me their literature at my home address. I kindly thanked them. One went a stage further to help my research. I will return to that company at the end of my speech.
I intend to stick to one issue. I endorse the concepts, thinking and detail of the report and the notion of transparency. The debate is clearly long overdue and is one that other countries, such as the Republic of Ireland, are having at exactly the same time. It is an important debate and changes are clearly required, both in the public interest and in the interest of the industry.
When I looked at the tragic case of my constituent, Mr. Stephen Lewis, and at the cases of many other people who have written to me—I have referred those who were not my constituents to other Members of
Parliament—I saw a big difference between the attitudes
of the various companies. We should put that difference on the record. Some companies handle matters quite appropriately in terms of how they issue cards, the credit they make available and how they deal with problems, including the tragic problems in this case.
I want to put on the record some of the banks that handled my constituent's case well. Morgan Stanley was exemplary in its dealings with both my constituent and me. HFC bank was also exemplary and went further in engaging in dialogue with me over some of the detail. I will not refer to that now; at later stages and other proceedings some of the issues and dilemmas raised will be relevant, but they do not directly impact on the debate today. Mr. Adrian Hill, the managing director of HFC, has taken highly appropriate action. Mr. Philip Williamson, chief executive of Nationwide, specifies—
162WH
the evidence backs that up—that his mutual takes a very cautious approach to lending. That is quite clear when we consider the case of my constituent. One of the ironies of someone being given 19 credit cards—I shall come back to that issue, as the number is now 20—by the industry is that comparisons can be made over a period in some detail. That means that those financial institutions stand out in their handling of the situation.
It would be wrong to discredit the whole industry because of the operations of some sections of it, but it would also be wrong simply to talk in generalities and not to name names, so I shall provide more names.
Mr. Sutcliffe: Before my hon. Friend starts naming names, his point about the industry is important. The good companies, the responsible lenders, the ones that do things properly—even though we may want them to do much more—must understand the benefit of doing the right thing in order to get the rogues out of the industry.
John Mann: My hope is that competitive pressures will begin to bear. It is clear from the media interest that this issue will run and run. Consumers are unhappy about the way in which the industry treats them. They want a proper and realistic choice. They want not to be ripped off but to be treated decently. There must be a comprehensive and understandable approach to issuing and using credit.
Barclaycard is a company that stands in the middle, because its dealings with me and attempts at dealings with my constituent—in intent, if not in delivery—have been exemplary. In a letter dated 2 April, Mr. Hoffmann, the chief executive, said that there was significant room for improvement in the credit card industry to allow issuers to make better-informed lending decisions and that the implications were industry-wide. He is absolutely right, and I am pleased that some of the leading players recognise that there is a problem to be addressed. Either the industry will address it or Parliament will; those are the two options.
Barclaycard has been quite proper in its dealings. It has been prepared to deal with me speedily, and Mr. Hoffmann has been prepared to speak and write to me directly. The content of his letters has been highly appropriate and his actions have been prompt, but they highlight the nature of the problem. On 6 February, he wrote to tell me that all the issues relating to my constituent had been resolved the previous November, but I learned that they had not been. In fact, Barclaycard had issued cards of which it was not aware. The problem was not with the whole industry but with one company. Further correspondence was required, and I received a letter dated 9 March, again telling me that the issue had been resolved.
Unfortunately, after all the significant publicity, a letter appeared from a credit-chasing company, Risk Management Alternatives:
"We have been instructed by our client … to collect the full overdue balance".
The letter is dated 19 March, after my constituent visited Parliament, after I had written and spoken to all the financial institutions and after we had met the Minister, the Chairman of the Treasury Committee and industry representatives. The letter continues:

163WH
"Your account has been cancelled due to non-payment."
It is perhaps not surprising that there was non-payment some seven or eight months after my constituent's death. The same financial institution had said in November that the issue had been sorted out, yet a letter about non-payment was sent to my late constituent on 19 March, chasing what was in fact the 20th credit card.
Barclaycard had not been aware of two cards. I received another very apologetic letter on 7 April, which included a most interesting reason for not spotting the problem earlier: there was an error in the name. Was the error created by my constituent? No. it was an inputting error by Barclaycard, which changed the name by pressing the wrong key and therefore had not identified the additional card. There will always be such examples.
However, two other major financial institutions were also unable to identify when I contacted them how many cards my constituent had with them—I am talking about Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB. The third one, which was the world's biggest financial institution—Citibank or Citigroup; it seems to have all sorts of names—denied vehemently that my constituent had two cards with it, even though I had the two cards in front of me. It claimed that there was only one. One has to question, when four financial institutions cannot identify how many cards someone has with them, whether there is a deeper malaise in the industry.
The least said about Citibank or Citigroup and my good self the better. I can sum up its attitude as the world's largest financial institution by quoting from a fax it sent me. It says that it will not answer any questions because
"there is not a return address or contact telephone number on your letter".
That is strange, as my letter was sent on parliamentary headed paper, the standard paper provided by House authorities to all of us. It was not the best of excuses.
I found that the best way to deal with Citigroup was to get a political pressure group in Washington to ring it up and tell it that if it did not sort out its problems, it would receive bad publicity on both sides of the Atlantic. Within 40 minutes, the issues were resolved. That sums up a lack of responsiveness in the industry, in relation not only to decency but to efficiency and competence.
I shall move on to MBNA. General Krulak and his successor as chief executive have written to and rung me on these issues. They seem to be strong supporters of the Treasury Committee. I shall quote from their letter as background information. They say that they use
"professional judgmental underwriting and credit scoring techniques to make the right decision. People—not computers—decide whether or not to approve an account."
The letter continues:
"They rely on sophisticated technology and behavioural scoring systems to assist them".
My constituent with MBNA had £;11,000 of credit card debt, all created within a two-year period.
MBNA states in another letter that when it granted my constituent his credit he had very little outstanding debt and less than the 5 per cent. debt to income ratio. Such a ratio seems reasonable for making a decision, but what exactly is meant by it? Is that 5 per cent. on one card? My research demonstrates that when my
164WH
constituent got a second card from MBNA he had significantly more than a 5 per cent. debt to income ratio on the single card that he already had with MBNA, never mind the other dozen or so cards he had simultaneously.
The debt to income ratio is fundamental, and even more so because of letters circulated to, I suspect, several colleagues from the Treasury Committee by APACS, which refer to a debt servicing to income ratio. Hon. Members should consider that. I have heard of debt servicing to income ratio in the football world in the case of Mr. Peter Ridsdale, the former chief executive of Leeds United. He was able to tell the football world that he could handle his debt repayments because of the money that he had coming in. Unfortunately, he forgot to tell anybody that there was debt that had to be not just serviced but repaid.
My constituent was an exemplary client. I have letter after letter from the financial institutions saying how exemplary he was, because he paid the minimum payment. He kept paying the minimum payment on one, two, three, then 18, 19 or 20 different cards. Indeed, he ended up for a number of months drawing cash on one card to ensure that he paid the minimum payment on the next. We might say that that is an exemplary plus consumer. That is at the heart of the issue. He was not exceeding his credit availability but matching it; it was taken to the full, but not beyond. Having a credit availability that is three times someone's income is clearly not sustainable, even for a matter of months, for anybody, so the industry must decide what is an appropriate definition of debt to income ratio. That is quite fundamental and should be examined by the industry, and if not by it, by Government.
I omitted to tell hon. Members about the case of the company that went a stage further than merely sending me some literature in the past month. Royal Bank of Scotland, which was the only financial institution that was not prepared to sort out the issues, or to attempt to sort them out, with my good self on behalf of my constituent's widow, was doorstepped by my good self and many members of the media. We went to the front desk and asked to see senior people and, rather reluctantly, some personal finance executives were dragged out to meet us. Although that was recorded by television cameras and by other journalists, clearly I was not clear enough, because RBS thought that I was going to apply for a credit card.
In the past month, I have received a credit card statement from it. It is not a credit card that I have or know about. It has nil payment on it, because as I do not have the card, I have not yet managed to spend on it. One wonders what the next monthly statement will show. Mr. John Mann apparently has a credit card courtesy of Royal Bank of Scotland, and has had a statement in the past month. What on earth is going on in the industry? If it is happening to me, such practice is happening to other people, and it is quite unacceptable.
In my view, we need, first, a consolidated debt statement by the industry to the industry and to the consumer. I would be more than happy if that was an annual consolidated debt statement and the information was shared. Whatever is said, it is quite clear that the information is not shared efficiently or properly. As private discussions were involved in this, I will not name the people, and it would be unfair to do so, but I will say

165WH
that a significant number of industry players have confirmed that there is not proper information sharing. The onus on them is to get their act together and to ensure that there is such sharing. My constituent could have been a fraudster, but he was not. He was an honest man who was extremely bad at handling his money and ended up losing his life because of it. He could have been a fraudster who was living in Spain or France having ripped off the financial institutions and the rest of us for a significant sum. There will be such people, because it is clearly easy to do. Not unsurprisingly, the industry does not highlight them, but it is in its self-interest to act.
Secondly, there must be an effective and agreed credit to income ratio so that people's credit availability is linked to the income that they receive. My experience of the concept is that it works reasonably well when it comes to the mortgage industry, and some might say it that it works very well. That concept should be working in this industry.
Thirdly, there must be a series of triggers for action. Something should happen a long time before someone has 19 credit cards and credit availability that is three times their income. That trigger is what we used to call the bank manager. Not that many years ago, if people went a little overboard in their expenditure, the bank manager would haul them in and firmly but politely point them in the right direction. Bank managers would use that key power ruthlessly. I recall from my limited experience of such dealings many years ago that bank managers would reduce the availability of borrowed money, not increase it, to keep the finances straight. In the credit card industry, it is quite clear that the opposite happens. When someone hits a problem, credit availability is increased.
Finally, independent debt counselling should automatically be triggered. By that I do not mean merely debt counselling at the end of phone, which requires a person to pick up the phone and decide that they have problems. That is not how the bank managers used to work. They would certainly not have accepted that it was for the customer to decide that they had problems. The bank manager would make a rational decision, looking at someone's financial history and situation. That system worked extremely well. The credit card industry must recreate that concept if it is to sustain its profits—RBS's profits were £8.5 billion last year—without the need for legislation from us. That is the choice: either the industry regulates properly or we do. The relevant legislation gives us the opportunity to do so. I shall propose such legislation if no one else does, and I trust that the House will back it. The onus is therefore on the industry to ensure that no such action is needed from here.
4.11 pm
Mr. David Drew: I do not think that you ever need security, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Long may it continue that we have open, honest and frank debates in here, and that the general public can see them, but not from behind a screen.
Continuing from the useful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), I have no intention of following him with examples of
166WH
individual cases, although any constituency Member can do so. What he said was a cry from the heart. We feel frustration over the cases that come to us, partly because we want to deal with them locally. We may be working with the local citizens advice bureau, a legal centre or the Mothers Union, which does excellent work on the issue—I declare an interest in that I am a member. Like us, such agencies deal with individuals at the local level. However, we also deal with anonymous forces and people who operate only at the central level.
Our constituents feel frustration partly because they cannot talk to anyone. I know that they cannot go to their local bank any more, because my daughter works for Lloyds TSB—I suppose that I declare that as an interest, too. Accountability for the credit card issues that we are discussing is so far up the line that it behoves us to recognise that that is how the frustration starts. However, there is no instant remedy. It would be nice to think that some of the issues were national nowadays, but they could of course be international. The problem is a starting point.
This debate is appropriate now. I should like to pass on my thanks to the Treasury Committee, and in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), its Chairman, because it has produced an important report that we keep coming back to. The Committee's doggedness shows any Select Committee that really wants to achieve anything how to do so. We all sit on various Select Committees that produce some pretty good reports, but unfortunately they will gather dust unless the Government pick up the issues. My hon. Friend the Minister has already given assurances that he intends to say some things in his speech that will, I hope, move things forward. However, things will not be moved forward unless people are assertive and clear about what they want to achieve.
I note in passing that, as compared with other debates that I have attended, the amount of material that has come through for this one shows that there is a great deal of interest out there, as one would expect.
4.15 pm
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House. 5.6 pm
5.6 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Drew: The timing of the Divisions was unfortunate, as this is an important debate. Before the Divisions, I was saying how much we owe to the local people who work with us and give advice, because of the difficulties with contacting any of the credit card companies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), who has long since gone, has been instrumental in the work behind the all-party group on debt and personal finance, of which I am a member. I want to plug that group, because some of the work that my hon. Friend and other members of the group have done brings home to other hon. Members, and the Government, the importance of this issue of our time. Some of us believe that private debt has replaced public debt as the subject about which we probably do not talk enough.

167WH
I was interested to see the report—I do not know whether it was rushed out, or whether it happened to come out at this appropriate time—commissioned by the British Bankers Association, and delivered by Oxera. I know that other hon. Members have said that there is apparently no great scourge of over-indebtedness coming our way, but I want to raise a point on that issue. Having seen the table on late payments, I
would like to know—there is some indication of this in
the figures—the degree to which over-indebtedness is
concentrated among the poorest in our communities, because they are the very people who tend to get into difficulties with the use of credit cards as a means to pay off their latest debt. I hope that when more research is carried out, it will concentrate specifically on that group. Although the report may have been published earlier, or have been reissued, I received it only recently, so I shall not comment further on that aspect.
Paragraph 79 on page 37 of the Select Committee report goes to what I believe to be the crux of the matter. It says:
"Many lenders stressed that it was not to their commercial advantage to lend to people who could not manage the repayments; RBS told us that it was 'firmly against a lender's own interest to lend to a consumer who cannot afford to service the debt.'"
I wish that that were true. When I talk to people who are seriously in debt, and then talk to whoever has lent them the money, it seems that as long as the last lender can cover and ensure that the debt will be repaid, they do not consider what has gone before as being their problem. That is the crux of the matter. When organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux try to consolidate people's debt, they often take up the issue with the latest or more recent lenders, and those lenders appear to be almost oblivious of what has gone before. That needs to be clearly identified as being at the root of the problem.
I ask the Minister to examine that issue, in the context of our discussions about data sharing and trying to develop a more coherent approach. I believe that that is the most irresponsible aspect of lending—lenders not knowing what has gone before.
I shall make a couple of observations in relation to store cards. Affinity cards have not been mentioned—I do not know whether the Committee considered them. They are slightly different, because they pick up on people's loyalties, but I believe that they are worthy of examination. Many of us have a credit card either through the Co-operative bank or through our own political parties—it is the done thing—but others may acquire them through various other organisations and may be getting a raw deal because the industry is exploiting their loyalty to those organisations.
It is good that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) is present, because the comparative example that I intend to use in relation to store cards concerns Unilever. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman, like me, was invited by Unilever to Wall's in Gloucester, when the company's unwillingness to allow other ice cream companies to put their ice creams into the cabinets had been referred to the Office of Fair Trading. I believe that one can draw an analogy with store cards. If someone goes to a store, that store will offer a range of goods and also a store card, but it will offer only its own store card. That seems to me to be anti-competitive. If the Office of Fair Trading is examining other suppliers with regard to
168WH
anti-competitiveness, should it not also examine that matter? If people want credit and want to take out a credit card, they should be offered a range of cards. There are parallels with mis-selling. That was what went wrong back in the 1980s, in particular, when agents were selling only the services offered by the people who were paying them.
My next point again arises from the work of the all-party group on debt and personal finance. My old friend, Marie Jennings, has done as much as anyone to promote the need for greater financial literacy in the UK. The area that we are discussing is a classic example of one in which the complication and confusion mean that the ordinary consumer is—without wishing to be pejorative—clueless about what is going on.
The Minister cannot speak for other Departments, but certainly the Treasury and the Department for Education and Skills should be acutely aware that warm words about financial literacy and consumer education are not enough. We should invest resources in this key area. It is interesting that we cannot agree even on what an APR is, but all children should have some understanding when they leave school of the difference between compound and simple interest and of what an APR is, so that they know what they will be asked to pay if and when they take out credit cards, store cards or affinity cards. I am sure that a Cabinet Committee is beavering away on the issue. It relates to some of the social exclusion work, which I am very proud that the Government have done. I think that the problem is much underestimated, given what we now understand.
As long as those issues are being dealt with, this has been a useful debate. I am sorry that it has been somewhat truncated. You might think that that is somewhat better, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it means that I have had to keep to the point, and I am sure that Front Benchers will now do the same.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) has advised the Minister and me that, because of circumstances beyond his control, following the activities in the main Chamber, he will have to leave shortly after he has spoken. We understand his predicament and accept it.
5.16 pm
Norman Lamb: I am grateful for your understanding, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and for that of the Minister. The situation involves a 12-year-old son outside St. Stephen's entrance at 5.30.
This is an important debate, although it is perhaps somewhat frustrating for us all that it lost a little of its momentum because of the suspension. I should say first that I speak both as a member of the Treasury Committee and as a substitute for the Liberal Democrat shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who wanted to speak here but is in fact speaking this afternoon at the British Bankers Association on similar issues. I acknowledge the role of the Chairman of the Committee in pursuing the inquiry. He has been pugnacious and persistent and has very effectively led the charge for improving standards in the industry in the best interests of consumers. I pay tribute to him for that.

169WH
We should all acknowledge, as the report did, that credit cards are a good thing. Used properly, they provide a flexible method of payment for short-term borrowing and have brought such flexibility to people across the income scale. We should welcome that. The purpose of the inquiry was not to attack credit cards, but simply to deal with some of our concerns about how the market operates. The redoubtable Matt Barrett was attacked mercilessly for what he said, but he gave the Committee some sound advice: he said that he would never advise his son to use a credit card for long-term borrowing. That is absolutely right and it was good that someone senior in the industry said that. He should be applauded, but he was attacked because it came out in a rather Ratneresque way. The message needs to reach people that using credit cards for long-term borrowing is a very dangerous business.
We have specific concerns about how the market operates. As other hon. Members have said, competition does not work effectively unless there is clear information and consumer knowledge and understanding of the product. That has certainly not been the case so far. I shall deal with four issues relating to how the industry operates, the first of which is transparency. The second is sales and marketing techniques—covered very effectively by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt)— as well as responsible lending. Thirdly, there is the problem of the lack of financial literacy: our society has experienced a revolution in the availability of credit since the Consumer Credit Act 1974, but no revolution in people's education about the range of products available. Fourthly, I shall explore whether we should be concerned about overall levels of debt.
It is right to criticise the industry for its record on transparency. The charge against it is that it has been opaque and misleading, and the verdict is that it is clearly guilty. It is perhaps fair to say that not all members of the industry are guilty, but the problem is that the worst within it taint the whole industry and give it a bad reputation. It has taken the Treasury Committee inquiry to shake it into action and to make industry representatives accept that.
The Committee was also critical of the Government, who have taken too long to act. In an intervention, the Minister made the point that the 1974 legislation took six years to emerge. Frankly, six years are not needed —there is no reason why the work should take that long. The issues are complex, and I fully accept that it is important that we get the legislation right this time, but we need action now. We heard earlier about concerns about slippage, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that will not happen.
The Committee was critical of the Office of Fair Trading, which has not been sharp enough in dealing with bad practice in the industry. There appeared to be a sense of complacency about the evidence that was given to the Committee, so it is also important that the OFT learns the lessons. There are signs in its work on store cards that followed on from the Select Committee inquiry that that is happening.
Some progress has been made. As the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington said, there is good news on the summary box, but its introduction falls a long
170WH
way short of achieving the transparency that we all desire. Virtually all credit card companies use the summary box on marketing material, but not on statements. The latter is another step that should be taken. To be blunt, summary boxes have very little value when different ways of calculating the APR are used and there are different ways of calculating the interest rates; it is impossible for the consumer to make a proper comparison. We are told that the Minister hopes to ensure that the regulation dealing with a single calculation of the APR will be in force by October. He is nodding and I am delighted to see that. I understand that we might see a draft statutory instrument in June or July, which would certainly be good news. However, I urge the industry to get on with agreeing a common interest rate calculation, because until we get that, even having a single APR will not take us much further forward.
On the transparency issue, I should like to say a word about scenarios. Throughout the inquiry, I pressed for all credit card companies to use common and agreed examples, and I was pleased that the consumer groups, such as the Consumers Association and the Office of Fair Trading, as well as several companies, including Nationwide, signed up to the idea of offering agreed scenarios. There was opposition—General Krulak of MBNA was a steadfast opponent of them, but he is gone now, which might herald a shift of position by MBNA. However, without being able to see the actual cost of credit in pounds and pence, consumers find it difficult to make a proper comparison of the cost of the various competing cards. We hear that there will be a competitive launch of scenarios, perhaps during the course of this year. That should be a challenge to the companies to get on with it. Let us see what they come up with and let them put pressure on the more recalcitrant companies to fall into line so that, ultimately, we are able to negotiate a common, agreed set of scenarios so that people can see the actual cost, in pounds and pence, of the credit that they take.
There are several other issues relating to transparency. I will not go into them because they have been dealt with already. I thoroughly endorse the points that have been made by other members of the Select Committee.
Store cards deserve a special mention. For me, some of the most disturbing evidence that we heard was from representatives of the store card sector. Some 14 million people now use a store card, and the average rate of interest is between 27 and 30 per cent., with many charging more than 30 per cent., which is ludicrous. It is fascinating to note that John Lewis and Marks and Spencer manage to provide store cards at a rate of interest that is substantially lower than the average. It seems to me, therefore, that GE Capital, the provider of store cards that have rates of interest around the 30 per cent. mark, ought to be capable of bringing its rate down. One hopes that more competition in the marketplace, perhaps as a result of the intervention of the Office of Fair Trading, might put pressure on GE Capital to deliver.
During questioning by the Select Committee, it was claimed that it was not possible under law to take the forms away so that they could be studied. We were also told that it was not possible to show the interest rate on

171WH
the explanatory leaflets. Both of those claims, which were made by major stores issuing store cards, were proved incorrect. There is no legislative impediment to providing the information. However, even after a Select Committee report that condemned the practice, when the OFT went on a shopping expedition, it discovered companies that still refused to let the consumer take away the application form. That is unacceptable. However, this morning I went to the Army and Navy store on Victoria street and was able to take away an application form: when I did the same thing last year during our inquiry, my request to do so was refused. Progress is slowly being made. The Army and Navy leaflet has a summary box and it shows the rates of interest and the minimum payment rules. However, the interest rate is still 29.3 per cent., which I suspect we would all agree is somewhat excessive. I welcome the moves that have been made, but there is still clearly a long way to go.
On sales and marketing and the related issue of responsible lending, it was remarkably cavalier and self-defeating of Barclays, during the course of our inquiry, to promote a card that offered 0 per cent. for ever. The justification for that offer has been successfully dismantled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. Citizens Advice pointed to a series of key practices that highlight the extent of irresponsible lending. It sets out the first as:
"Look how fast it is to get a credit card"
and refers to a "30-second application form". Other practices include statements such as:
"Look how much we will lend you"
and
"Look at the low interest rates you might not get".
Citizens Advice lists all of the examples that demonstrate that irresponsible lending practices are still going on.
That is the sort of thing that brings the whole industry into disrepute. When companies such as Barclays, which, from the evidence that we heard, has a fairly prominent place in the rogues' gallery, indulge in that sort of sharp practice, the rest of the industry ought to condemn them and demand higher standards. It is up to us and the OFT to highlight examples of sharp practice, expose the wide boys and demand better practice.
Mr. Plaskitt: On the subject of Barclaycard and its 0 per cent. rate, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman noticed that during the year when Barclays was promoting that offer, its profits from the credit card business rose by 17 per cent. to reach £722 million. Matt Barrett himself was rewarded as a result of that with a £2 million increase in his salary.
Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to that. It speaks for itself and probably sticks in the throat of many of the people who got themselves into debt as a result.
Barclays is making absolutely massive profits from payment protection insurance. There is plenty of evidence that such insurance has been mis-sold to consumers who would never be in a position to take advantage of it. That sort of practice, which has been exposed by The Guardian and many other newspapers,
172WH
should be stamped out, and I have taken that up with the Financial Services Authority, which will take responsibility for general insurance in the new year. It is very important that its rules ensure that that sort of practice cannot continue. There is a duty on the industry to lend responsibly, which has not always been the case in the past. It has a duty not to inveigle people into debt or to prey on the most vulnerable. It should help those who get into trouble.
Citizens Advice has reported a 44 per cent. increase in inquiries in the past five years from people who have got themselves into difficulties. They support the call made by the Select Committee for the industry to increase financial support for free money advice. That is a critical point on which we need to keep pressing the industry. It is making substantial profits, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has pointed out, and some of that money ought to go towards the provision of free advice for the people who are most in need. Citizens Advice Scotland in its submission before the debate made the point that statements and other correspondence ought to make reference to free independent advice from agencies such as citizens advice bureaux.
On the question of consumer knowledge and financial literacy, Mr. Ron Sandler has recently been quoted as saying that the vast majority of consumers are confused and daunted when dealing with the financial services industry. There has been a pilot scheme in 300 secondary schools to ensure that children get education about financial services so that they can make informed choices. The Association of Investment Trust Companies has put forward a proposal that there should be a levy placed on regulated financial services firms to contribute to ensure that such education takes place. That is an initiative that should be pursued further.
On the question of overall debt, the Minister fairly pointed out that the proportion of income being paid in interest charges is significantly lower than it was in the early 1990s. However, there is an upward trend for two reasons: first, the level of debt is increasing and, secondly, interest rates are on an upward trend. There is a report in the Evening Standard tonight stating that compared to a year ago, there has been a 37 per cent. increase in personal debt, including a £484 million increase in spending on credit cards. That highlights the fact that the issue of private debt is a growing one. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) pointed out that there has been something of a transfer of concern from public debt to private debt.
Mr. Plaskitt: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is an important distinction to be made between secured and unsecured debt? The increase to which he refers is in secured debt, and reflects the increase in the value of housing. The growth level of unsecured debt is very steady and, if anything, is falling slightly.
Norman Lamb: There has been growth in both secured and unsecured debt. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the distinction, but the concern is that the most sensitive element—borrowing on the value of the house—carries a risk. There is a significant and growing body of evidence to that effect. I put the risk at less than 50 per cent., but if interest rates continue on their

173WH
upward trend, we could get a house price crash. In evidence that the Committee considered following the Budget, the International Monetary Fund made the point that there is a crash in 40 per cent. of examples of house price bubbles. We have to take that concern seriously. If there is an increase in interest rates, the pressure on family budgets from both secured and unsecured debt might result in increased problems in making payments.
There are two issues in that respect. First, there is the enormous personal concern of those families who get into difficulty. However, there is a wider concern. If interest rates increased and there was a crash in house prices, a slowdown in consumer spending would be inevitable. The economic growth that we have experienced and enjoyed in the last few years has, to some extent, been driven by the consumer sector. If that were to slow down as a result of the combination of debt and increasing interest rates, it could have an impact on the wider economy. That is an issue that we need to debate. We must consider what some experts have described as "the overall balance sheet" of the national economy. The Government must take that seriously into account.
As the Chairman of the Committee said, the report is very much a progress report. We need to see far more progress from the industry. We need it to agree to show the cost of credit in pounds and pence. We need it to agree on a basis for calculating interest. We need an end to the unsolicited supply of credit card cheques. We need an end to misleading marketing in the sector and we need a commitment to provide more financial support for free advice to those who get into difficulty.
From the Government, we need a commitment that there will be no slippage in the timetable to put the long-overdue reforms in place. That is no criticism of the Minister, who has only been in post for a few months. It is time for action. We need a modern and effective regulatory framework for the industry, and we need the Government to work with the industry on school curricula to ensure that we get the financial education to improve financial literacy for our population. Finally, we need the Office of Fair Trading to be much more alert to abuses in the sector and much tougher on sharp practice.
As the Chairman has said, there will be no letup from the Committee in driving up standards in the industry. It is very important. Progress has been made, but there is still much to be done.
5.39 pm
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I speak as the Opposition spokesman on, among other things, consumer affairs. This is one of the issues that cross over between the Treasury and the DTI. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) not only for the way he introduced the subject, but for the work that he and his Committee have done in producing what I found to be an extremely interesting and informative report. It is a pleasure to take part in the debate.
In a free society, borrowing is a useful and necessary tool. It finances homes, cars, businesses and, therefore, jobs and can help people through hard times. In a free
174WH
society there is a right to borrow money. However, I qualify that by saying that whether borrowing is good or bad depends on the need to borrow and the reasons for doing so. My grandfather always used to tell me, "When you are in debt, you are in danger." That is a truism, although I stress that in many cases sensible borrowing can be productive.
We have heard that the level of debt is perhaps not as important because of low interest rates, but we have also heard that some people are paying high interest rates. It has been said that about 7 per cent. of people may be considered to be highly indebted, but a report in the Financial Times this morning suggested that the figure may be only half that. I am concerned by those figures, and there has been no attempt today to play down the seriousness of the problem.
In a typically enlightened and deep-thinking speech, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred to the fact that people who cannot afford debt may be becoming more indebted. From my understanding of the report, there was a slight increase between 1995 and 2000 in unsecured debt, as a percentage of income, for those earning more than £50,000 a year; however, for people earning less than £11,500 that debt doubled. That is a worrying trend. Perhaps more worrying is the fact that unsecured debt as a percentage of income for the over-65s has almost doubled. I understand, from work done by my researcher, that a quarter of people who go to citizens advice bureaux about debt have also seen their doctors about the problems that debt has created in their lives. That is a big problem.
There are good and bad reasons to borrow. It can seem okay to borrow money if one is earning, but the problems arise when circumstances change. I do not have a credit card; I use charge cards. That is primarily because I do not trust myself with credit cards—I would rather have a card that compels me to pay the amount off the next month, frightening though that sometimes is. I have been in a position in which I was not deeply in debt but had debts to the point that when I received my pay cheque each month it was disheartening to think how much of it had already been spent. That is not a good feeling.
The vulnerable, such as the low-paid and pensioners, are most at risk because they have less chance to pay the money back, especially when things go wrong. Perhaps those categories of people are less able to understand the complexities of the market. Some of them might be more vulnerable because they cannot get what might be termed "respectable" credit and therefore go to people offering high interest rate charges or loan sharks. That aspect of the economy is a massively complicated subject.
A few months ago I decided to buy a new car. I had agreed everything, but when I went to pick it up the salesman told me to sign a five-year agreement. I said, "Hang on a minute, I don't want a five-year agreement, I thought it was a three-year agreement." He said, "Oh no, this is five years", so I said, "Well, thanks very much, I am going to do some shopping." I got a phone call shortly after that—they were evidently panicking that they would lose my custom—saying, "We have found another way around it. You can cut the agreement off after half. If you have paid half the amount owing, you can hand the car back and there is nothing more to pay." I, like most people. was not aware of that arrangement

175WH
and the chap trying to sell me the car said that he was not aware of it. My point is that the market is so complex that people, especially those in the vulnerable groups, may not understand that there are choices, although their choice could save or lose them thousands of pounds.
We have become accustomed to not concerning ourselves too much with the interest rates and bank charges that we pay; it is so easy to forget how much we are paying. Hon. Members may remember that, quite a while ago, there was an advert for a bank—I cannot remember which—in which someone on the high street asks for change for a pound, and is given 90p. The advert then shows the people arguing about the remaining 10p. The point that the bank was trying to make was that people will argue over the 10p, but they will pay charges without realising that they are doing so, to the tune of hundreds of pounds a year. That was a powerful point.
Who can wonder that we get into so much debt when invitations to borrow money come to our house practically every day? We can borrow through loans, credit cards, store cards or overdrafts. We may even get letters saying that we have won prizes, and it is only when we try to claim them that we find we have to spend money to do so.
Another thing that has caused debt to grow is the easy availability of not only mortgages but remortgages. When we get to the end of a five-year deal—and it may have been a good deal—we may remortgage. Say someone borrows £100,000, or more, for a house; after five years, when changing that mortgage, they might borrow £110,000, just to splash out on a holiday or something. It is very easy to accumulate debt in that way. The fact that there are so many mortgages available, and that there are so many options for the consumer, is great. It must be; it is about choice and availability. However, there is a slight downside to that, as I have just described.
Another issue that bothers me is interest rates, about which we have heard so much. The APR almost seems—no, is—an irrelevance, because it can be calculated in different ways. It is totally misleading. There are many other misleading things, such as store cards. When people take out a store card, they get a discount on what they buy the next time they go to the shop; but they also get hefty interest to pay unless they pay up front.
I am concerned about the proliferation of unnecessary credit. Although I accept that, in a free society, people are free to borrow money if they want to, the increasing levels of credit and debt are not necessarily good. It seems that we are able to borrow ever more money, without there being a relationship between what we borrow and our ability to pay. Many hon. Members talk about the council tax being unfair, because it does not relate to ability to pay, and that may well be a solid argument; but it seems that, these days, the credit industry does not take account of that ability, either.
A friend of mine was working full-time and had a certain credit limit. He was then made redundant. The credit company was not to know that, and upped his credit limit. Then he got another job, and it managed to up his credit limit again. Then he went part-time, and it
176WH
was upped again. He retired, and the company upped it again. There was absolutely no correlation between his ability to pay and what he was allowed to borrow.
I understand that someone who has never borrowed money may sometimes find it difficult to do so, because they do not have a good credit record. Of course, they do not have a bad credit record either. That seems a strange way of running the industry.
One or two hon. Members have touched on the insurance charges paid by those unlucky enough to have credit cards—as I say, I do not. I got a letter on that subject from a constituent this week. I know that many people pay insurance and are not quite sure what it is for. When they are made redundant, they find that they are not covered by the insurance that they paid for, and they cannot get that money back. That needs to be looked into, too.
Also, money that goes into paying off loans and credit is not being put into savings. What worries me as well as the increasing debt is the reduced levels of savings. That cannot be a way to ensure security as people get older. I am also bothered by the lack of checks, a point that the hon. Member for Stroud touched on. The sale of goods process is protected in so many ways. Quite rightly, there are regular inspections of schools and factories, and nowadays there are inspections of other financial services. There has been quite a clampdown, in many ways.
The fact that a loan is an invisible product should not mean that it is not subject to the law and to checks to ensure that its sale is being carried out in the right way. It is because loans are invisible, so to speak, that they seem to escape the kind of rigorous attention that is needed. I do not want to keep quoting the hon. Gentleman, although he is my neighbour in Gloucestershire —I will probably feature in the local newspapers more than he if I keep quoting him—but he was absolutely right when he talked about the lack of a personal touch.
I cannot phone my bank now; if I try to do so, I have no idea where the person I am speaking to is. They may not even be in this country. I say nothing against the service that that person may offer, regardless of what country they are in. However, it used to be nice to phone the bank and speak to somebody who knew a little bit about my account and my record. That service is just not available now, and we should regret that. I am sure that it has added to the problems that we now find.
Where does that leave us? Where do we go? I do not know whether I should say this, but I do not know whether I envy the Minister his role, because this issue is so difficult to sort out. We have a challenge. We have the freedom to borrow, and, as I said, if borrowing finances the right things, it can be a good thing. We have to be free to borrow. I have to be free to go to a bank, and if the bank wants to do business with me, it is free to lend me the money. I believe in freedom; that is why I joined the Conservative party. I believe in extending the freedom of the individual to do, basically, as he pleases, as long as that does not interfere with or damage other people.
However, against that is the need to protect people, not just from themselves, but from people who might rip them off. That is the difficult balance that has to be struck. I do not think that the Minister has an easy job.

177WH
I am sure that he is up to it, but I do not envy him it. The best thing that he could do—and again, my thunder has been stolen by previous speakers—is to promote education: to start teaching people what the issue is all about. There are probably two ways in which we can do that.
I engage in consuming alcohol, in smoking and in gambling, and I have no intention of giving up any of them. However, there are constant warnings about the dangers of those three things. There are helplines, and all sorts of things that warn us against doing them. However, there do not seem to be the same sort of warnings against getting into debt, and that is something that we should think about.
As has been mentioned, these days school does not seem to teach the practicalities of life; it probably never has. We do not seem to teach people the things that they need to know. I am not knocking the teaching of Arabic or anything else, but I think that as a country with a state education system we ought to make sure that school prepares people for the outside world. I always thought that it was meant to do that, but it does not at all, and it needs to start.
There are dangers now in the world which did not exist many years ago, so there is a great need to teach people about them, and about the opportunities that borrowing affords. I hope that we can move towards that. That is not the entire answer, but I believe that it is a start.
5.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and the Select Committee on their excellent report. From the quality of the debate this afternoon, it is clear that the members of that Committee have gained an insight into the issues that need to be faced. The examples that they have given show how important the report has been. As my hon. Friend says, it is a work-in-progress document.
I will not go into a long speech, because of the broken-backed nature of the debate that we have had, owing to Divisions. That does not mean that I am trying to duck the issues. It is clear in my mind that the Treasury Committee will ask me to appear before it to discuss the way in which the Government are trying to deal with consumer credit.
I enjoyed—perhaps that is an unusual word to use—the experience of appearing before the Treasury Committee when the issue had a high profile or when it was making it such, given those who were before it. I do not doubt for one second that the report has already helped me in what I am trying to do as the Minister responsible for consumer affairs in sorting out what hon. Members describe as a difficult area.
Mr. McFall: May I put on the record my appreciation and that of the Committee of the Minister's helpfulness in the inquiry. I have had several meetings with him at the DTI and he has committed himself to keeping me, and hence the Committee, informed about his
178WH
negotiations with the industry, for which I am grateful. I look forward to that communication continuing. It is important and will help to achieve a good end result.
Mr. Sutcliffe: It is vital, and shows that, when Parliament works well, the Select Committee process is ideal. It helps the Government achieve their targets. It is also a critical friend and helps us to sort out the detail. Many issues have been raised this afternoon, and our debate will help us move forward with the consumer credit Bill for which I hope we will have parliamentary time. I intervened several times to show that I have a commitment to ensuring that the route that we set down will deliver the massive change that we proposed in the White Paper to meet hon. Members' aspirations. I shall touch on some of the challenges that have been issued.
I hope that the Treasury Committee will recognise that I am not attempting to duck the issues by truncating my speech. I want to explain our work in progress, which we shall develop. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) referred to the fact that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was at a conference this afternoon. I attended it this morning. It was held by the British Bankers Association, and was on responsible lending. It is a major step forward. Let us consider the participants at that conference: there were representatives of the industry, of consumer associations and of the Government, and other politicians talking about key issues that affect the country.
The consumer credit White Paper was accepted and acknowledged in December, when it was published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as a major step forward in considering consumer credit, which has not been examined for more than 30 years. I wish to make a point about the six years that it has taken to get these matters in place. At that time, one credit card—Barclaycard— accounted for an annual debt of about £32 million. We are told now that there are at least 1,500 credit cards—and probably more—and that the debt is considerably greater. The way in which the marketplace has developed has made it a complex area. As has been said, if used appropriately, credit can be a force for good. Most people can handle the use of credit.
The Government's intention in the White Paper was to honour their manifesto commitment to tackle loan sharks and locate the other end of the scale when people could get not get mainstream credit. We are trying to find ways in which to deal with people who charge those massive APRs that we all know about and who are, in some cases, involved in criminal activity when dealing with individuals. As the White Paper evolved, some criticism was made about the delay, but that was necessary given the range of matters that had to be considered. It is important that we considered how to deal with loan sharks, and I am pleased that the Government have introduced pilot projects in Glasgow and Birmingham to examine what happens, bringing agencies together so that the police, trading standards and local authorities are involved. That means that we can tackle consumer credit issues at that level. I respect the fact, however, that the Select Committee's report was principally about credit cards.
Mr. Drew: The White Paper is important, but the Treasury also commissioned the Cruickshank report.

179WH
What liaison is the DTI having with the Treasury about the critical comments in Cruickshank, which put the onus on the banking industry to put its own house in order? Is that liaison happening as well?
Mr. Sutcliffe: Yes, a great deal of work is going on. The Treasury Committee has helped that by asking Treasury Ministers about the relationships across Government when they have appeared before it. I am happy to report that ministerial teams, including that on over-indebtedness, are made up of representatives of a wide range of Departments. I have discussions with the Financial Secretary about the issues in the Cruickshank report. As my hon. Friend the Member said, a great deal of work had been done on inclusion with the various Cabinet Committees that are in place.
The White Paper concentrated on creating transparent markets, because the key point is transparency. Our aim is responsible lending and consumers knowing what is in the packages or products that they are being offered. It is about creating the fairer framework that hon. Members have mentioned for both the lenders and the borrowers. It is also about developing a strategic approach to minimising over-indebtedness.
I accept that there are concerns about the pace of reform, but I stand by the commitments on the APR and advertising that I gave to the Select Committee. Regulations will be coming out in the near future, and I give the undertaking that we will work closely with the Committee on them to ensure that hon. Members have appropriate sight of them and that we are going down the right route. We will also be working hard to fulfil my other commitments.
I do not want to mislead hon. Members, and there are issues in the industry. One thing that I have tried and will continue to try to do is maintain the consensus. Consumer groups are working with us and have welcomed the White Paper, as has the industry. When we get down to the nitty-gritty of the regulations, codes of practice or whatever we feel is the appropriate instrument, I want to take people with us. I have told the industry that when evidence proves that there is an issue concerning systems, for example, I will be prepared to examine it in the context of the form and content of agreements. I am prepared to do that, but not to be hoodwinked or in a position of weakness. We want the momentum to continue.
Providing that there is parliamentary time, we will need a consumer credit Bill to deal with many of the issues.
Mr. Plaskitt: While the Minister is on the subject of sticking to commitments, I shall put to him the question on credit card cheques that I put to him in the Select Committee in November. I asked whether he looked forward to seeing an end to the unsolicited dispatch of credit card cheques. His answer was, "I would hope so." Is that still the case?
Mr. Sutcliffe: As my hon. Friend would expect, as I have developed into the role of ministerial office, I have been exposed to the arguments from all sides of the debate. I will examine the issue of credit card cheques in the context of firmly believing that what I said in the
180WH
Committee was right. A better approach would be for consumers to know what they are letting themselves in for. We are looking for pre-entry agreements before people sign up. We must debate with the industry how credit card cheques can be used appropriately. I am not wriggling—we must have detailed discussions when we consult and work through matters. If we want clear and transparent rules, my hon. Friend's suggestion for credit card cheques will not be appropriate. There may be an appropriate way for dealing with credit card cheques, and I am sure that we will return to the subject.
The point has been made about the need for transparency in the summary box and in the calculation of interest and APRs. It is about responsible lending and the role that we and in particular the Office of Fair Trading can play. Through the licensing regime, we give powers to the OFT to ensure that the appropriate people are lending. It is a major step forward, and I think that hon. Friends on the Select Committee will appreciate that.
I have been considering placing a ceiling on APRs, but I have not yet made a decision about it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton said, in addition to APR we should consider other charges. I want to ensure that the borrower knows the full implications of a product, because various selling techniques offer a lower APR but hide other product charges. It is important that all information is available to the consumer.
I wholeheartedly agree with the points made about penalty charges, and we must to continue to examine them. The OFT is considering issues about store cards as a direct result of what the Select Committee has done.
Education is probably the biggest issue that I wish to discuss. The attitude to credit has changed dramatically, and I agree with all the hon. Members who have talked about the need for education, but what comes first—money advice or debt counselling? I would like to thank the industry-sponsored bodies and the consumer groups that are tackling the issue of education in schools and communities and giving people advice and support.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Before the Minister leaves the subject of education, will he say whether he believes that there is any mileage in warning people of the dangers of debt? We warn people about drinking, smoking and gambling. Although borrowing can be used for good, it is also terrible to be in debt when one does not have the ability to make repayments.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I agree, and that point relates to the freedom within society and the right to choose to which the hon. Gentleman referred earlier. One has the right to choose properly only when one knows exactly what is on offer. Selling and presentational techniques have hoodwinked people—and it is not a matter of social class: surveys show all people's confusion about the nature of products.
There are issues about disposable income, and that is the reason why I cited the figure about that earlier. However, we must also reflect on the state of economy, with its low interest rates and its stability that gives people the confidence to borrow.
We heard warnings from the hon. Member for North Norfolk, who asked what would happen if interest rates were to rise significantly. The hon. Member for

181WH
Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) will remember that interest rates were much higher when his party was in government.
The Select Committee has asked me to consider certain issues. I shall do that, and will try to stay on track. It would take much longer than we have allocated
182WH
to us today to go through all the detail, so I shall finish by saying that it is work in progress. The report is an important piece of work and we look forward to working with the Committee again.
Question put and agreed to
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Six o 'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from the New Opportunities Fund was allocated to Burnley in each year since 1997. [167901]

  Estelle Morris
  The New Opportunities Fund began making grants in 1999. The awards to Burnley are shown in the table.

  Financial year

  £

  1997–98

  —

  1998–99

  —

  1999–2000

  38,000

  2000–01

  286,877

  2001–02

  872,209

  2002–03

  1,466,891

  2004–03

  220,000

  Total

  2,883,977

  The information is derived from the Department's Lottery award database, which uses information provided by the Lottery distributors.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from the New Opportunities Fund was allocated to Preston in each year since 1997. [168142]

  Estelle Morris
  The New Opportunities Fund began making grants in 1999. The awards to Preston are shown in the table.

  Financial year

  £

  1998–99

  —

  1999–2000

  4,378,682

  2000–01

  558,009

  2001–02

  3,068,323

  2002–03

  2,500,450

  2004–03

  1,730,044

  Total

  12,235,508

  The information is derived from the Department's Lottery award database, which uses information provided by the Lottery distributors.

  Smithfield General Market
  Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will spotlist the Smithfield General Market, the adjacent fish market and Red House. [165520]

  Mr. Caborn
  These buildings hive previously been turned down for listing in 1990, 1999 and 2003. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State 582W
  has asked English Heritage for further advice. She will take a decision on whether to list these buildings once this advice has been received.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Biofuels
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from farming groups regarding biofuels. [167024]

  Mr. Morley
  Representations have been received, both at meetings and in correspondence, from the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the British Association for Biofuels and Oils, British BioGen, plant breeders, agricultural suppliers, farming consultants and other agricultural businesses.

  Farm Subsidies
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessments her Department has made of the effects of her proposals for single farm payments with respect to(a) tenant farmers, (b) new entrants and (c) farmers in severely disadvantaged areas; and if she will make a statement. [167026]

  Alun Michael
  Defra will publish shortly an analysis of the economic impact on the English farming industry of the decoupling of CAP direct payment and the decision to allocate entitlement on the basis set out in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's Statements to the House on 12 February and earlier today.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the environmental effects of the aggregates tax on Somerset. [167025]

  Mr. Morley
  The Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund was set up using revenue from the aggregates levy to address the impacts associated with aggregates extraction. Somerset is one of the three counties which receive funding direct from Defra to support projects to reduce local impacts.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she plans to take to deal with the threat of bovine tuberculosis to cattle. [167018]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are currently consulting on a long-term strategy for dealing with bovine TB in Great Britain. In the short term our priority must be to prevent further spread of the disease and our consultation seeks views on various cattle-based measures designed to help us achieve this.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with her ministerial colleagues in the Netherlands on similarities between the approaches taken in the UK and in the Netherlands to(a) the protection of the coastline, (b) the use of soft defences in coastal protection, (c) managed retreat and (d) managed realignment; and if she will make a statement. [164249]

  Mr. Morley
  I have had informal discussions with ministerial colleagues in the Netherlands on matters relating to coastal defences. However, officials from the two countries meet on a regular basis. Recognising the benefits to be gained by shared experiences both in respect of policy and engineering solutions, officials from the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Denmark and England agreed to meet on an annual basis more than five years ago and so formed the North Sea Coastal Managers Group. The English delegation is led by my Chief Engineer.

  Meetings of the group have proved an invaluable forum for the exchange of information on the subjects raised by the right hon. Member. However it is important to recognise that there are differences between the Netherlands and England both in terms of the geography of the coastline and the proportion of the economic wealth at risk of flooding.

  Employment Agencies
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the employment agencies which her Department and its predecessors have used to supply temporary staff in each financial year since 1996–97 to the most recent date for which figures are available. [163821]

  Alun Michael
  Defra was formed in June 2001. The information prior to this date cannot be provided, as it is not held centrally. For the financial years for which information is available centrally the main employment agencies which the core Department has used to supply temporary staff are as follows:

  2001–2002:

  Adecco UK Ltd.

  Kelly Services UK Ltd.

  Badenoch & Clark

  FSS International Ltd.

  Spherion UK Plc

  Stopgap Ltd.

  Brook Street (UK) Ltd.

  Indigo Selection

  Hays Accountancy Personnel

  Accountancy Additions Ltd.

  Michael Page International

  Chain Solutions Ltd.

  Riverside Recruitment

  Barclay Simpson

  Adept Recruitment

  Manpower plc

  Josephine Sammons Ltd.

  584W

  Recruit Media

  Griffiths Davies Recruitment

  Lawson Bishop

  2002–2003:

  Adecco UK Ltd.

  Kelly Services UK Ltd.

  Badenoch & Clark

  FSS International Ltd.

  Stopgap Ltd.

  Brook Street (UK) Ltd.

  Indigo Selection

  Hays Accountancy Personnel

  Accountancy Additions Ltd.

  Michael Page International

  Chain Solutions Ltd.

  Riverside Recruitment

  Barclay Simpson

  Adept Recruitment

  Manpower plc

  Josephine Sammons Ltd.

  Recruit Media

  Griffiths Davies Recruitment

  Lawson Bishop

  Swantame Ltd.

  Hays Montrose

  Parker Bridge

  Ivor Morrish Associates

  Russell Thomas Associates

  FSS Financial

  Atebion Recruitment Ltd.

  Martin Ward Anderson

  Drax Interim Executive

  Cameron Kennedy

  Marks Sattin

  Manpower UK Ltd.

  IMS Ltd.

  D G Farran Consultants Ltd.

  Contact Technical Services

  Staffline

  MSB International

  Reed Staffing Services

  TMP Worldwide ER

  Blue Arrow Personnel Services Ltd.

  Big Fish Little Fish

  Reed Personnel Services plc

  First Personnel Group plc

  Office Angels

  Cathedral Secretarial Agency

  Recruitment South West Ltd.

  Premiere Labourforce Ltd.

  Execulets

  Parker IT

  Randstad Employment Bureau Ltd.

  Kellys International Ltd.

  Michael Page Ltd.

  585W

  2003–2004 (April to December):

  Adecco UK Ltd.

  Kelly Services UK Ltd.

  Badenoch & Clark

  FSS International Ltd.

  Stopgap Ltd.

  Brook Street (UK) Ltd.

  Indigo Selection

  Hays Accountancy Personnel

  Accountancy Additions Ltd.

  Michael Page International

  Chain Solutions Ltd.

  Riverside Recruitment

  Barclay Simpson

  Adept Recruitment

  Manpower plc

  Josephine Sammons Ltd.

  Recruit Media

  Griffiths Davies Recruitment

  Lawson Bishop

  Swantame Ltd.

  Hays Montrose

  Parker Bridge

  Ivor Morrish Associates

  Russell Thomas Associates

  FSS Financial

  Atebion Recruitment Ltd.

  Martin Ward Anderson

  Drax Interim Executive

  Cameron Kennedy

  Marks Sattin

  Manpower UK Ltd.

  IMS Ltd.

  Hudson Global Resources Ltd.

  Crone Corkill

  Staffline

  Big Fish Little Fish

  Blue Arrow Personnel Services Ltd.

  Cathedral Secretarial Agency

  Recruitment South West Ltd.

  Aptus Personnel Ltd.

  FSS Financial

  Excel Recruitment Ltd.

  Travail Employment Group

  Stop Gap

  Office Angels

  Spherion UK Plc

  Other agencies may have been used by local managers when business needs have required resources which could not be provided from within the Department or a quick response. Data on these agencies is not held centrally.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make 586W
  a statement on the (a) sampling procedures used in the Chardon LL VCU trials and (b) statistical validity of the results obtained. [166345]

  Mr. Morley
  The sampling procedures used in the Chardon LL Value for Cultivation and Use (VCU) trials were those specified in the trials protocol and used for all maize variety VCU trials. The procedures are designed to ensure that samples used in trials are as representative as possible of the variety in general. The results of the trials for Chardon LL were reviewed by maize trials experts on the Herbage VCU Group and members of the Interdepartmental Statisticians Group, who confirmed their statistical validity.

  Local Food Production
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's support for local food production. [167013]

  Alun Michael
  The Government recognise the benefits of local food and is keen to encourage a flourishing local food sector. In recognition of this, provision is available under the England rural development programme for supporting activities such as the establishment of farmers' markets, the development of regional and local branding of foodstuffs and the formation of collaborative groups to market quality products. For example, within the last year we awarded £100,256 to the National Association of Farmers' Markets to raise the profile of farmers' markets across England and to increase public awareness of them.

  Defra has also helped finance a number of local sourcing workshops organised by the Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) designed to bring together supermarkets and small local producers to explore how barriers to local sourcing can be overcome. Following on from this, we helped fund the Business in The Community (BiTC) and IGD guide for small businesses looking to work with large food retailers and food service companies—"Local Sourcing—Opening the Door for Small Business". In addition to this, our Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative is designed to encourage public sector bodies to procure their food in a manner that promotes sustainable development and to encourage more small and local businesses to compete to supply them with food.

  This work will be complemented at a regional level through the regional plans that each regional development agency (RDA) is drawing up to help deliver the Government Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food. Although the nature of this support will be determined according to regional priorities, issues to be addressed will include the production and supply of locally sourced food by encouraging food hubs and shared facilities and the linking of local producers with local retailers and tourist businesses.

  Methyl Bromide
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what position Her Majesty's Government is taking over current applications to the United Nations for exemptions from the international ban on methyl bromide. [166573]
  587W
  Mr. Morley
  Methyl bromide is an ozone depleting substance and its production and supply are controlled under the Montreal Protocol. Its production is due to be phased out in developed countries after 31 December 2004.

  However, in recognition that alternatives for all existing methyl bromide uses may not be a available by 2005 a provision was made under Decision IX/6 of the Montreal Protocol, where critical use exemptions can be requested when there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives. The UK's view is that methyl bromide is being phased out by the Protocol and should not be phased back in by excessive critical uses.

  Several Parties to the Protocol, including the UK, submitted applications for critical use exemptions and a package of exemptions was agreed at an Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol in Montreal (24–26 March 2004) Some further applications, including from the UK, will be due for decision by the Parties at a meeting of the Parties in November.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her best available estimate is of the cost of answering the questions on badgers and bovine TB asked by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) in session 2003–04. [157135]

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost has been of providing answers to parliamentary questions asked by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) on the subject of bovine TB and related matters since 2003. [164210]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The last estimate made of the average cost of answering a parliamentary question (April 2002) was £135.

  The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has tabled 450 questions on badgers and bovine tuberculosis during this parliamentary session. Thus the estimated total cost involved in answering these questions is £60,750.

  This cost has been met by the diversion of resources from the development of policy and from scientific research in relation to both wildlife and to bovine TB. It has resulted in delays in responding to public correspondence and has held up work on areas such as the review of badger licensing, consultation on deer management, the review of the TB website and updating the advice to farmers in the booklet "Dealing with TB in Your Herd".

  Temporary Staff/Consultants
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 1391, on temporary staff, if she will list the amounts spent by her Department on (a) temporary staff and (b) consultants for each year; if she will publish the job descriptions of
  588W
  the consultants hired by her Department in (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. [164714]

  Alun Michael
  I am sorry the answer I gave the hon. Member on 9 March,Official Report, column 1391W, incorrectly included reference to consultants and did not accurately record the expenditure on temporary staff.

  The correct figures from the Departmental accounts show payments to employment agencies for the supply of temporary staff for the three financial years as:

  2001–02: £18.01 million

  2002–03: £13.11 million, and

  2003–04: £9.62 million respectively.

  The figure for 2003–04 covers the period April to December 2004 only. Once financial year end reconciliations are complete, I can write to the hon. Member with the expenditure for the last three months of the financial year

  The job descriptions of the consultants hired by the Department in 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 are not held centrally and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  UK National Seed List
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her responsibilities relating to the inclusion of GM crops on the UK National Seed List as it applies in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland. [166523]

  Mr. Morley
  The Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/3510) deal with the acceptance of agricultural plant varieties onto the National Lists of varieties. These Regulations apply to both conventional and GM varieties. The National Lists are United Kingdom lists.

  The National Authorities have the joint responsibility to decide whether a plant variety has met the criteria in the Regulations in order that it can be added to the relevant National List. The 'National Authorities' are defined for the purpose of the Regulations as:

  in respect of England. the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;

  in respect of Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;

  in respect of Wales, the National Assembly for Wales; and

  in respect of Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

  Water Supply (Nitrate Pollution)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the reasons for changes in the level of nitrate pollution in public water supplies; and what steps are being taken to reduce levels. [167020]

  Mr. Morley
  Unusual meteorological conditions caused an increase in nitrate levels in 2001. Results for 2002 show a significant improvement. We are supporting water company schemes for nitrate removal in the current periodic review of water price limits, provided there is sound evidence of the likelihood of future failures.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Al Tawhid
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the activities of Al Tawhid in the United Kingdom. [165904]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: Al Tawhid is a Sunni Palestinian organisation which appears to have close associations with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda. Its stated aim is to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy and replace it with a fundamentalist Islamic regime. However, though it has some support here, it does not appear to be formally active in the UK.

  Al-Muhajiroun
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will proscribe al-Muhajiroun under the anti-terrorism legislation; [165905]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the activities of al-Muhajiroun. [165906]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: Al-Muhajiroun was established in 1996 and has members throughout Britain. It originated in Pakistan and has groups in a number of countries including the US. Its stated aim is the establishment of a worldwide Islamic way of life by openly attracting popular support amongst Islamic communities.

  The list of proscribed organisations is kept under constant and active review. As a matter of policy, we do not comment on whether a particular organisation is being considered for proscription or de-proscription. Such decisions are and will continue to be taken only after the most careful consideration and on the basis of the best possible security advice. That will remain the basis for all decisions in the future.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to ensure courts give particular consideration to the impact of antisocial behaviour on victims, witnesses and the wider community. [165917]

  Ms Blears
  Section 16 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 requires courts to give particular consideration to the impact of antisocial behaviour on victims, witnesses and the wider community in all nuisance-related housing possession cases.

  The Magistrates' Association implemented new sentencing guidelines on 1 January 2004, including for the first time guidelines for the offence of breach of an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO). The guidelines reflect the seriousness of the offence and direct the magistrate to consider the impact on the victim.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many areas have been designated as an area of persistent antisocial behaviour by a senior Merseyside police officer since the inception of this power. [165919]
  590W
  Ms Blears
  Merseyside police tell me that three areas have been designated as areas where antisocial behaviour is a significant and persistent problem since these powers came into force.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the new antisocial behaviour prosecutor teams in the Crown Prosecution Service. [166682]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Attorney General, together with the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Director of Public Prosecutions, will be announcing today that 12 specialist Anti-Social Behaviour Expert Prosecutors have now taken up their post in hot spot areas around the country.

  They will be dedicated to working closely with their local communities and colleagues in the Criminal Justice System, to combat antisocial behaviour, which, although at the lower end of the criminal scale of offences, are the cases which most affect law-abiding people, who remain trapped in their homes through fear of crime.

  The Home Office, Crown Prosecution Service and Department of Constitutional Affairs will be working closely together to ensure that the Anti-Social Behaviour Expert Prosecutors will achieve their objective of ensuring that the maximum benefit is derived from the new powers given to them by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 as well as spreading best practice and providing expert advice.

  Background Checks (EU)
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts regarding requirements for checks on people coming to the UK from other EU countries before they can take up positions working with children or vulnerable people. [165832]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: On 18 March 2004 the Home Office held a seminar on collecting and sharing of information on child sex offenders across Europe. The seminar provided an opportunity for policy officials from across Europe to discuss how we can improve the collection and sharing of information on those who pose a risk of sexual harm. In particular the seminar examined how member states can ensure that people who pose a risk to children do not evade any requirements or disqualifications put on them in one country by moving to another.

  We are now considering the options that arose from discussions at the seminar on how we can take this area of child protection forward.

  Car Crime
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many car crimes there have been in each year since 1997; and how many resulted from the theft of car keys. [166836]
  591W
  Ms Blears
  The number of thefts of and thefts from vehicles (including cars, light vans, motorbikes and mopeds) since 1997 as measured by the British Crime Survey (BCS) are provided in the table.

  Numbers of thefts of and thefts from vehicles 1997 to 2002–03 BCS interviews

  Period

  Thefts of vehicles

  Thefts from vehicles

  1997

  370,000

  2,157,000

  1999

  328,000

  1,807,000

  2001–02 interviews

  315,000

  1,491,000

  2002–03 interviews

  278,000

  1,425,000

  The BCS also provides the proportion of thefts of or from cars or light vans where entry into the vehicle involved the use of car keys (unlike for the numbers of offences above, these proportions do not include motorbikes or mopeds). The percentages from 1997 to 2001–02 are provided in the table.

  Proportion of thefts of and thefts from cars/vans where the method of entry was with a key

  Percentage

  Period

  Thefts of vehicles

  Thefts from vehicles

  1997

  7

  4

  1999

  8

  1

  2001–02 interviews

  12

  2

  Chromatography Tests
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has evaluated on chromatography tests for traces of explosives in human hair. [166844]

  Mr. Blunkett
  A preliminary study into the recovery of explosive traces from the surface of human hair was carried out by the Forensic Explosives Laboratory, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory on behalf of the Home Office.

  Subsequent research into the analysis of explosive traces extracted from human hair was carried out and included evaluation by gas chromatographic techniques. This work was published by Sanders et al in Science and Justice vol. 42, No. 3 (2002) pp137–142. I will send a copy to my hon. Friend.

  Correctional Policy HQ Command
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the intended size of the Correctional Policy Headquarters Command is. [165881]

  Paul Goggins
  The size of the Home Office Correctional Policy, Prison Service and Probation Service Headquarters is being considered as part of the ongoing departmental reform exercise.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the Correctional Policy Headquarters' administrative requirements; and what estimate has been made of the costs. [165882]
  592W
  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office Correctional Policy, Prison Service and Probation Service Headquarters administration requirements are being considered as part of the ongoing departmental reform exercise. Headquarters costs in 2004-05 will be met from within existing provision. Funding for 2005–06 onwards will be agreed as part of the current spending review.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional powers the Criminal Records Bureau would require to carry out checks on all people coming from abroad before they were able to take of positions working with children or vulnerable people. [165831]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: Part 5 of the Police Act 1997, under which the Criminal Records Bureau operates, does not empower the Bureau to search databases outside the United Kingdom for conviction and other information shown on its Disclosures. Inquiries made about arrangements in force in other countries have shown both how varied they are and how complex it would be to introduce widespread arrange vents to link up with records in a range of other countries. The Bureau has taken the initiative by establishing its overseas information service for the benefit of employers who are considering recruiting staff from outside the UK. The service provides detailed information about the arrangements for checks in other countries, including where such information can be obtained, how to go about obtaining a check, the cost and the time taken. At present. this arrangement covers 16 countries, including nine in Europe, and work is in hand to extend the service to a further 15 countries, including 14 in Europe.

  Cuantanamo Bay
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he made of the consistency with international law of the interrogation methods deployed by the US at Guantanamo Bay before sanctioning the involvement of MI5 in that process. [162883]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 22 March 2004]: The Government have a duty to protect national security. This is the context it which Security Service conducted interviews at Guantanamo Bay. All Security Service interviews were carried out in accordance with United Kingdom law.

  Merseyside Police
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions a Merseyside police officer has taken a child home after 9 pm from a designated area since the inception of this power. [165921]

  Ms Blears
  Merseyside police tell me that they have taken home eight unsupervised children in three specific areas since these powers came into force.

  National Offender Management Service
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which not-for-profit organisations have been invited to comment on the proposed National Offender Management Service. [165186]

  Paul Goggins
  Reducing Crime—Changing Lives, which invites comments on the proposed National Offender Management Service, was sent to an extensive list of stakeholders and is available on the Home Office website. The National Offender Management Service Implementation Team is also engaged in an ongoing consultation with key stakeholders.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish legislation to introduce a National Offender Management Service; and whether he plans for it to be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. [163105]

  Paul Goggins
  The National Offender Management Service will be introduced from 1 June 2004. Many of the changes needed to establish the service will not require legislation but where legislation is required this will be introduced as the legislative timetable allows.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which bodies his Department has consulted on the proposals for a National Offenders Management Service. [163107]

  Paul Goggins
  Copies of "Reducing Crime—Changing Lives", the Government's proposals for reform of the correctional services, were distributed to an extensive list of organisations, individuals and stakeholders and made available m the Home Office website. The National Offender Management Service implementation team is involved in ongoing consultation with key stakeholders.

  Police
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what disciplinary measures have been taken against police officer; as a result of the breach of security on the parliamentary estate on 20 March. [165872]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: In the immediate aftermath of the incident on 20 March, the Metropolitan Police Service instigated an investigation into the incident, to ensure that they had delivered the appropriate and professional response. That investigation continues, and I would not want to prejudge the outcome of that investigation.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reasons were for the decision not to charge the officers who made racist comments while filmed by an undercover journalist for the BBC documentary "The Secret Policeman". [166072]

  Ms Blears
  The Crown Prosecution Service makes the determination in all cases where criminal charges are being considered. The Crown Prosecution Service informs us that matters in respect of two of the 10 officers are the subject of further investigation. Once this investigation has been completed a file will be slit mined for the Crown Prosecution Service's further consideration.
  594W
  The remaining eight officers were not prosecuted because the Crown Prosecution Service considered there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

  All 10 officers concerned were allowed to resign. Their police forces considered it in the public interest to end their relationship with the police service as quickly as possible rather than force them to remain to face police misconduct proceedings.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change there has been in police numbers in(a) the Avon and Somerset police authority and (b) Weston-super-Mare in each year since 1997. [167504]

  Ms Blears
  The increase in police numbers for the Avon and Somerset constabulary for each year since 1997 is set out in the table.

  Police officer strength

  Increase decrease

  Percentage change

  31 March 1997

  2,989

  —

  —

  31 March 1998

  2,976

  -13

  -0.43

  31 March 1999

  2,999

  +23

  +0.77

  31 March 2000

  2,934

  -65

  -2.17

  31 March 2001

  2,960

  + 26

  + 0.89

  31 March 2002

  3,096

  + 136

  +4.59

  31 March 2003

  3,149

  + 53

  +1.71

  31 December 2003

  3,371

  + 222

  + 7.05

  Overall increase

  —

  382

  +12.78

  Weston-super-Mare is part of the North Somerset Basic Command Unit (BCU). Information on strength at BCU level is collected annually and reflects the position at the end of March. Information on BCU strength is only available from 2002.

  Between March 2002 and March 2003 police strength for the North Somerset BCU increased by 4.9 per cent. (from 203 to 213). The deployment of officers to BCUs is a matter for the Chief Constable (Stephen Pilkington QPM) and within the North Somerset BCU deployment of officers is a matter for the Divisional Commander.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in full-time police officers in Manchester Gorton has been since 1997. [167466]

  Ms Blears
  Manchester Gorton is part of the South Manchester Basic Command Unit (BCU). Information on strength at BCU level is collected annually and reflects the position at the end of March. Information on BCU strength is only available from 2002.

  Between March 2002 and March 2003 police strength for the South Manchester BCU increased by 0.8 per cent. (from 954 to 962). The deployment of officers to BCUs is a matter for the Chief Constable (Michael Todd QPM) and within the South Manchester BCU deployment of officers is a matter for the Divisional Commander.

  The number of police officers in Greater Manchester Police has increased by 848 since March 1997 to 7,770 in December 2003.

  Probation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the effect has been on probation areas in England and Wales of the 2 per cent. underspend imposed in December 2003; and how many areas have appealed against the decision. [160807]

  Paul Goggins
  The 2 per cent. underspend and compulsory carry forward requirement was introduced for the following reasons:The Probation Service was heading for a forecast overspend in 2003-04 and it was necessary to reduce spending to bring expenditure back into line with budget.
  The probation areas had an average 11 per cent. increase in resources for 2003–04 and the increase for 2004–05 is much lower at 3.5 per cent. It was therefore considered desirable to smooth the annual settlements by moving 2 per cent. from 2003–04 to 2004–05, therefore making the relative financial settlements 9 per cent. and 5.5 per cent.

  28 areas have managed to carry forward the full 2 per cent. or more into their budget for 2004–05. A further eight areas have managed partial carry forwards.

  The remaining six areas have appealed against the decision to have their budgets reduced by 2 per cent.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reasons were for the increase of £47.2 million for Probation Headquarters in the Spring Supplementary Estimates; and how this money will be spent. [165876]

  Paul Goggins
  A transfer of £30.5 million was made from the Chief Executive of the National Offender Management Service to the National Probation Directorate primarily to fund Electronic Monitoring, the Standard Technical Environment for the Probation Service (STEPS) Information Technology roll-out and Probation Loan Charges.

  A further transfer of 16.7 million was made from the Criminal Justice Information Technology Group to fund the STEPS Information Technology rollout.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what new money he pledged to Afghanistan at the recent Donor Conference in Berlin. [166724]

  Hilary Benn
  At the Afghanistan donor conference in Berlin I announced an increase of the UK pledge to Afghanistan from £200 million over 5 years, to £500 million over the same period.

  When DFID made the pledge of £200 million over five years in Tokyo in January 2002, this only related to DFID funds for humanitarian and reconstruction work. Since then funding for Afghanistan has become available from other parts of Whitehall, with the Global Conflict Prevention Pool establishing a programme for Afghanistan (£55 million over three years), and the formulation of a counter narcotics strategy with specific
  596W
  funding (£70 million over three years). Inclusion of these figures in the pledge announced allows them to now be properly recognised by the Afghan Government.

  Since the pledge look effect in March of 2002, DFID has disbursed over £150 million. The new pledge takes our reconstruction funding for Afghanistan to £375 million, this represents £175 million in new money.

  EU Development Assistance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to promote the human rights of the indigenous people of Chaco in Bolivia; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167079]

  (2) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to defend human rights in Colombia; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167080]

  (3) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to strengthen institutional support for human rights in Mexico; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167081]

  (4) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to provide a landmine expert to Sudan; and what assessment he has Trade of the project; [167082]

  (5) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, entitled Participation Management of National Resources in Berau in Indonesia; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167083]

  (6) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, on rehabilitation and reconstruction in Afghanistan; and what assessment he I as made of the project; [167084]

  (7) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, entitled Second Recovery Programme in Afghanistan; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167085]

  (8) what his Department"s involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, entitled Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Peru; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167086]

  (9) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to reinforce civil society in Guatemala; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167087]

  (10) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to reinforce democracy in Venezuela; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167088]

  (11) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to reinforce the judicial system in Colombia; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167089]
  597W
  (12) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to undertake a landmine technical survey in the Inhambane and Maputo provinces of Mozambique; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167093]

  (13) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to undertake a landmine impact survey; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167094]

  (14) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 effort, financed by EU Development Assistance, to deliver micro-projects in Malawi; und what assessment he has made of the project; [167095]

  (15) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to provide (a) reconstruction at Sona and (b) medical assistance in the Congo; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167096]

  (16) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project financed by EU development assistance to help displaced communities to return home to Djbouti; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167097]

  (17) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project financed by EU development assistance to reintegrate Ethiopians displaced from Eritrea; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167098]

  (18) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project financed by EU development assistance to clear mines in Eritrea; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167099]

  (19) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project financed by EU development assistance to support refugees and internally displaced people in Eritrea; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167100]

  (20) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project financed by EU development assistance to provide emergency demobilisation and reintegration support in Eritrea; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167101]

  (21) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project financed by EU development assistance to deliver micro projects in (a) the Central African Republic and (b) Angola; and what assessment he has made of each project; [167102]

  (22) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project financed by EU development assistance to deliver micro projects in Togo; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167103]

  (23) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project financed by EU development assistance on the reintegration of ex-combatants in rural areas of Guinea Bissau; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167104]

  (24) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project financed by EU development assistance to improve healthcare provision in the Congo; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167105]
  598W
  (25) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project financed by EU development assistance to deliver micro projects in the Congo; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167106]

  (26) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, to provide complementary support to the rehabilitation programme in Burundi; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167107]

  (27) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, to provide emergency support to the peace process in Angola; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167108]

  (28) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, to support displaced people in (a) Eastern and Southern Africa and (b) the Indian Ocean; and what assessment he has made of each project; [167109]

  (29) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 projects, financed by EU development assistance, entitled Education-Environmental Capacity Development Programme in (a) Ghana, (b) Namibia, (c) South Africa, (d) Mozambique and (e) Angola; and what assessment he has made of the projects; [167110]

  (30) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, to reduce rural poverty and manage forest sustainability through development of non-timber products arid community institutions in Ethiopia; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167111]

  (31) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, to deliver community-based fisheries management and coral reef restoration in (a) the Caribbean and (b) the Pacific; and what assessment he has made of the projects; [167112]

  (32) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, to deliver sustainable forest management in Kenya; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167113]

  (33) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, to provide infrastructure technical assistance in Sempoa; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167114]

  (34) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, to provide sanitation in St.Pierre; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167115]

  (35) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, to deliver micro-projects at a cost of ¬7.0 million, linking relief, rehabilitation and development in the Dominican Republic; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167116]

  (36) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, entitled Bugesera/Karenge drinking water supply in Rwanda; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167117]
  599W
  (37) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, entitled Karasburg Sanitation in Namibia; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167118]

  (38) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to provide (a) community based natural resource management and (b) carbon management in Mozambique; and what assessment he has made of the projects; [167119]

  (39) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, entitled Beira Sanitation in Mozambique; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167120]

  (40) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to undertake social forestry in Malawi; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167121]

  (41) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to provide water supply for six towns in Lesotho; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167122]

  (42) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 projects, financed by EU Development Assistance, to manage natural resources in semi-arid regions in (a) Kenya and (b) Somalia; and what assessment he has made of the projects; [167123]

  (43) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to use a new wildlife management method in Gabon; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167124]

  (44) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to manage protected forest areas through Government NGO and civil society partnerships in Cameroon; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167125]

  (45) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to improve rural water distribution in Burkina Faso; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167126]

  (46) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to deliver a solid waste programme in the Dominican Republic; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167127]

  (47) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to provide sustainable forest management in Tanzania; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167128]

  (48) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to deliver a water sector support programme in South Africa; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167129]

  (49) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, on education reform in El Salvador; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167136]
  600W
  (50) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 projects, financed by EU Development Assistance, on ecology in Brazil; and what assessment he has made of the projects; [167137]

  (51) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to strengthen the capacity of citizens in Colombia to exercise their rights and what assessment he has made of the project; [167138]

  (52) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, on human rights in Guatemala; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167139]

  (53) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, on re-unification in Peru; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167140]

  (54) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, on the defence and promotion of the rights of the indigenous people and those of African origin in Nicaragua; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167141]

  (55) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, finance' by EU Development Assistance, to counter discrimination on grounds of ethnicity in Guatemala; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167142]

  (56) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to strengthen organisational processes in 120 communities in Colombia; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167143]

  (57) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, finance d by EU Development Assistance, to counter racial discrimination in Paraguay; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167144]

  (58) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 projects, financed by EU Development Assistance, to rehabilitate victims of torture in (a) Argentina, (b) Chile and (c) Peru; and what assessment he has made of the projects; [167145]

  (59) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to prevent torture in Peru; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167146]

  (60) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, to provide an electoral observation mission in Ecuador; and what assessment he h as made of the project; [167147]

  (61) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, to create a code of ethics and of education in Ecuador; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167148]

  (62) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, on public engagement in the electoral process in Columbia; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167149]
  601W
  (63) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 micro projects, financed by EU development assistance, at a cost of €1,300,000 in (a) Colombia, (b) Guatemala and (c) Mexico; and what assessment he has made of the projects; [167150]

  (64) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, on the reform and modernisation of public administration in Honduras; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167151]

  (65) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, on the modernisation of the administration of justice in Mexico; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167152]

  (66) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, on the development of commerce and promotion of investment in Bolivia; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167153]

  (67) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, on academic co-operation in Latin America; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167154]

  (68) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, on rural development in Nicaragua; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167155]

  (69) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU development assistance, on help for small rural producers in Panama; and what assessment he has made of the project; [167156]

  (70) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to (a) provide education in South Sudan on the banning of landmines, (b) train refugees in Tanzania in self-reliance and (c) secure demobilisation and reintegration in (i) the Great Lake, and (ii) Eritrea; and what assessment he has made of each project; [167157]

  (71) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to (a) support the Office of the Attorney General and (b) provide the rapid reaction mechanism to (i) Afghanistan, (ii) Indonesia, (iii) Nepal, (iv) Sri Lanka and (v) Cambodia; and what assessment he has made of each project; [167158]

  (72) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, entitled (a) Asia-Urbs (increase), (b) ASEAN-IPR (increase), (c) Asia-Europe Foundation Phase II, (d) Asia Invest II and (e) II' and C for Asia (increase); and what assessment 1 e has made of each project; [167159]

  (73) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, entitled (a) framework contract/studies for Asia, (b) medicinal plants in Bhutan and (c) APRIS institutional strengthening at a coot of £4 million; and what assessment he has made of etch project; [167160]
  602W
  (74) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, to (a) support the SME Development fund in Vietnam, (b) provide multilateral trade assistance to Cambodia and (c) provide support to the process of government reform in Pakistan; and what assessment he has made of each project; [167161]

  (75) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, entitled (a) WTO II (support to China's integration) in China and (b) small project facility in (i) Indonesia and (ii) the Philippines; and what assessment he has made of each project; [167162]

  (76) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, entitled (a) Vietnamese Government Interpreters Training Programme in Vietnam, (b) European TA programme for Vietnam (ETU2) and (c) labour market facility in Vietnam; and what assessment he has made of each project; [167163]

  (77) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, (a) to provide multilateral trade assistance to Laos, (b) on renewable energy in Nepal, (c) to develop rural towns in Bangladesh and (d) to provide support for community health services in Indonesia; and what assessment he has made of each project; [167164]

  (78) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, entitled (a) SEDF-Enterprise development in Bangladesh, (b) Reproductive Health/UNFPA II in Asia and (c) Drugs-Reach Out II in Pakistan; and what assessment he has made of each project; [167165]

  (79) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, entitled (a) Northern Pakistan Education Programme, (b) Support for Basic Education in Laos and (c) SMILING (Support to NGOs in Bangladesh); and what assessment he has made of each project; [167166]

  (80) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, (a) to provide assistance for street children in Vietnam, (b) to support healthcare reform in Thailand and (c) to deliver an HIV/AIDS project within the UN joint plan of action in Burma; and what assessment he has made of each project; [167167]

  (81) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 project, financed by EU Development Assistance, (a) to provide support to the education sector in Cambodia and (b) to provide European studies in China; and what assessment he has made of each project; [167168]

  (82) what his Department's involvement was in the 2002 micro-projects, financed by EU Development Assistance, in (a) Zimbabwe and (b) Tanzania; and what assessment he has made of each project. [167169]

  Hilary Bean
  DFID has been involved in the projects, or programmes described in a number of ways. Firstly by contributing the UK's share of the European Commission budget allocated to the projects cited and secondly, wherever possible through in-country consultation with the EC office over project and
  603W
  programme design. DFID also attend the relevant Management Committees that approved the EC strategies and programmes under which the projects were or are being implemented. Finally, in some cases, DFID has formed part of a multi-donor in-country programme management committee that oversaw or is overseeing project implementation.

  Some of the projects cited are ongoing and an assessment will only be possible once they have been completed. The EC, through its results-orientated management system and strengthened evaluation systems, is best placed to carry out such an assessment. DFID is however often involved in, or consulted on, such assessments. Assessments carried out to date have identified both significant success and areas for improvement. DFID continues to work with the European Commission to improve the quality and impact of its development assistance.

  I refer the Hon. Member for Buckingham to the information available in the '2003 Annual Report from the European Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the EC Development Policy and the Implementation of External Assistance 2002' and the European Commission's website http:// europa.eu.int for further details about individual programmes and projects. I will place copies of the report in the Libraries of the House.

  Uganda
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the efficacy of his Department's contract with the World Food Programme to distribute food to Teso in North East Uganda. [166760]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development has a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the United Nation's World Food Programme in Uganda. The current MoU has been in place since December 2002. It clearly sets out the UK's expectations in relation to our bilateral financing, and gives the World Food Programme (WFP) obligations to fulfil.

  The WFP has the full capacity required to provide food relief in the North and East of Uganda effectively. WFP is the UN agency mandated to provide food aid in such a large-scale emergency, and the only agency on the ground equipped with the necessary staff, resources and experience necessary to respond adequately to the situation. DFID closely monitors the WFP's performance through the reports it submits directly to DFID, the monthly Humanitarian Updates it provides to the donor community as a whole, and regular discussions with WFP representatives in Kampala.

PRIME MINISTER

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will announce new appointments to the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and if he will make a statement. [168455]
  604W
  The Prime Minister
  I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Sir Alistair Graham as Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in succession to Sir Nigel Wicks with effect from Monday 26 April. Sir Alistair has been a Member of the Committee since 1 October 2003.

  I have also appointed Lady Elizabeth Valiance as a Member of the Committee in succession to Sir Alistair following his appointment as Chairman.

  Both appointments have been made fully in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Cod of Practice.

  I am very grateful to Sir Nigel for his excellent leadership of the Committee, and for the significant contribution he has made to upholding and improving standards in public life.

  Food Imports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Departments are responsible for ensuring that(a) EU member states' and (b)> EU accession states' food imports to the UK meet the appropriate EU (i) slaughter, (ii) production, (iii) processing, (iv) labelling, (v) hygiene, (vi) food safety and (vii) traceability standards. [167322]

  The Prime Minister
  It is the responsibility of the relevant authorities in each EU member state and accession state to ensure that all food is produced and exported in accordance with EU legislation. The European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office is responsible for ensuring that authorities comply with these responsibilities.

  Food coming to the UK from accession states before 1 May 2004 (and after this date for accession states not due to join the EU on 1 May) will be subject to the same import controls as food from other non-EU countries. Such food is subject to routine food safety and standards checks at UK ports by local authorities.

  The Food Standards Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its agencies are responsible for food safety and food standards in the UK. Enforcement responsibilities are delegated to environmental health and trading standards departments in local authorities, who carry out checks on food to ensure compliance with food safety and food hygiene standards.

  Foreign Ministerial Visits
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is on the length of time it is appropriate for Cabinet Ministers to be out of the country. [167798]

  The Prime Minister
  Section 7 of the Ministerial Code provides guidance to Ministers making overseas visits.

  Jonathan Powell
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reasons Mr. Jonathan Powell has the power to direct civil servants. [167797]
  605W
  The Prime Minister
  Jonathan Powell has executive powers under article 3(3) of the Civil Service Order in Council. He has direct responsibility for leading and coordinating operations across Number 10 and reports to me.

  Mayor of London
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the Mayor of London.[168001]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals, including the Mayor of London. As with previous administrations, it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings, under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Michael Meacher
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reasons the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton left his post as Environment Minister. [167773]

  The Prime Minister
  As has been the practice under successive administrations, all ministerial offices are at the disposal of the Prime Minister. Details of resigning Ministers have been announced on each occasion.

  Ministerial Cars
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to reduce the dependency of(a) himself and (b) his Ministers on ministerial cars. [167800]

  The Prime Minister
  Under the terms of the Ministerial Code, Ministers arc required to make efficient and cost-effective arrangements, taking account of security considerations.

  All ministerial travel on official business is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in "Travel by Ministers".

  Surveillance Commissioner
  Tom Levitt
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reappointment of the Surveillance Commissioner under Part III of the Police Act 1997. [168424]

  The Prime Minister
  In accordance with Section 91 of the Police Act 1997, I have agreed to re-appoint Sir Philip Otton as Surveillance Commissioner from 1 February 2004 to 31 January 2007. The remit of each Surveillance Commissioner covers the whole of the United Kingdom so that any Surveillance Commissioner can act in jurisdictions other than his own.

  The right hon. Sir Philip Otton has served as a Surveillance Commissioner since 2001. I am delighted that Sir Philip has accepted his re appointment and am grateful for his continuing work.

  Use of Government Property
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is in respect of the use of Government property by individuals other than special advisers to carry out work for New Labour. [167795]
  606W
  The Prime Minister
  Guidance to Ministers on the use of Government property is set out in section 6 of the Ministerial Code.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Katharine Gun
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Solicitor General pursuant to her answer of 8 March 2004,Official Report, column 314W, on Katharine Gun, if the Attorney-General will place copies of the correspondence between Ministers and himself on the Katharine Gun case in the Library. [164241]

  The Solicitor-General
  The correspondence between the Attorney-General and Ministers relates to the "Shawcross" exercise undertaken by the Attorney-General. The Attorney wrote to ministerial colleagues asking for views and any issues which may impact upon his decision whether or not it was in the public interest to consent to the prosecution of Katharine Gun for an offence under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. The correspondence falls within exemptions 1, 2 and 4 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The correspondence includes information whose disclosure would harm national security and was a consultation between Ministers where their advice and views were sought. The Attorney-General considers that to disclose this would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion. He has concluded the harm likely to arise from disclosure of this material outweighs the public interest in making the information available. In addition the correspondence related to legal proceedings and therefore comes under exemption 4.

  Copies of correspondence between Ministers and the Attorney-General on the Katharine Gun case will not therefore be placed in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  Buses (Merseyside)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what incentives have been provided to upgrade buses used within the Merseyside transport system. [166979]

  Mr. McNulty
  Under the LTP process, Merseyside's five year Plan and 10 year Strategy include significant investment in the development and promotion of bus services. Merseytravel are working with local bus operators to improve standards through the Quality Corridors initiative in the LTP. Corridor Q, for example, was launched in St Helens in March 2003, involving a package of bus priorities, new bus stops, information systems and low floor buses. Merseytravel have also encouraged operators to fit particulate filters to 140 city buses through an Energy Saving Trust supported programme to encourage lower vehicle emissions.

  Congestion Charge
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of(a) Transport for London and (b) the Greater London Authority to discuss the congestion charge. [166907]

  Mr. McNulty
  The London congestion charging scheme is the responsibility of the Mayor, not the Government. However, Ministers have regular meetings with the Mayor at which a wide range of transport matters are discussed.

  Driving Test Waiting Times
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average wait for a driving test is(a) at Mill Hill test center, (b) in London and (c) in each of the other regions of the United Kingdom; what plans he has to improve delays in giving test dates; and if he will make a statement. [167091]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Driving Standards Agency has a national target for the average annual waiting time for a practical car driving test in England, Scotland and Wales of six weeks. The current national average waiting time for a test is 9.8 weeks. The current waiting time for a practical car driving test at the Mill Hill test center is 17 weeks. The average waiting time for a test in the London and South East area is 13.3 weeks. Waiting times for a practical car driving test vary in the other areas of Great Britain as follows:

  Area

  Average waiting time (weeks)

  Midlands and Eastern

  10.3

  Wales and Western

  7.2

  Northern

  9.7

  Scotland

  4.9

  In Northern Ireland, the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency has a target average waiting time for a practical car driving test of 23 days. The average waiting time across test centers in Northern Ireland is currently 27 days.

  In order to reduce the current high waiting times for tests in Great Britain to the six week waiting time target, the Driving Standards Agency recruited 283 new driving examiners in the last financial year and plans to recruit a further 330 in the coming year. An extra 7.30 am test slot is being added to weekday programmes in some test centers and tests are now offered on Sundays. The agency is deploying as many driving examiners as possible from Scotland to the London and South East area to tackle the problem of high waiting times there. In the context of its Business Plan for 2004–05, I have set the agency a target to bring national waiting times down to six weeks by January 2005.

  Electronic Vehicle Licensing System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 1 April 2004, Official Report, column 1571W, on Electronic Vehicle Licensing System, when the Electronic Vehicle Licensing System will be implemented for cars over 3-years-old; and what the completion date for the full scheme is. [166997]
  608W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The electronic system for vehicles over 3-years-old will require a link between DVLA and the new MOT computer system. This should be fully available by early 2006.

  Green Minister
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what work his Department's Green Minister has undertaken in the last three months in that capacity; [166063]

  (2) what meetings his Department's Green Minister has attend,;(1 in the last 12 months in that capacity; [166064]

  (3) if he will list the meetings at which his Department has been represente I on the delivery of sustainable development across Government as coordinated by the Ministerial Sub-committee of Green Ministers; [166065]

  (4) what steps he taking to promote the delivery of sustainable development within Government; [166066]

  (5) what progress has been made on his Department's sustainable developn ent strategy. [166067]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since becoming the Department's Green Minister, I have attended a number of meetings with Defra Ministers, including the Environment Minister, Elliot Morley, during which a range of sustainable development issues of concern to both our Departments were discussed.

  I am also a member of ENV(G). It has been established practice under successive Governments not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees. This practice is now formalised by Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  In my role as Green Minister, I have overseen the publication of the Department's Sustainable Development Policy Statement which was published on the DfT website in March of this year. This outlines how DfT is integrating the principles of sustainable development into decision-making. It complements the Department's existing 'Green Operations Policy Statement' (also or, the website), which sets out our objectives for improving the environmental performance of the estates of the Department and its Executive Agencies.

  Liverpool Airport
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to r view the role of Liverpool Airport within the national airport strategy. [166980]

  Mr. McNulty
  The White Paper The Future of Air Transport, published in December, recognised the benefits to the lock 1 economy resulting from the expansion of Liverpool Airport and supported its further growth to accommodate increased demand. It is now for the airport operator to bring forward specific development proposals. We will report progress on the policies and proposals set out in the White Paper in 2006.
  609W

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from the emergency services since June 2001 on the removal of(a) speed humps and (b) pinch points on the road network. [165960]

  Dr. Howells
  The emergency services have made no requests for the removal of traffic calming measures. The London Ambulance Service has however requested that before any measures are introduced full consideration be given in order that the right balance is struck between effective traffic calming and allowing ambulances to continue with minimum hindrance.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) factors and (b) statistics relating to road humps his Department is planning to monitor; and when monitoring will commence. [167226]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has conducted a number of monitoring exercises into the effects of road humps in recent years. The results of this work have been published in Traffic Advisory Leaflets and technical reports. Details of these projects are contained in Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/01 entitled Traffic Calming Bibliography. Copies are available from the House of Commons Library. There are no plans to conduct further monitoring exercises at thc present time.

  Transport Services (Birkenhead)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new cycle lanes have been provided using public funds in Birkenhead since 1997. [166497]

  Dr. Howells
  4.05 miles of new cycle lanes have been constructed in Birkenhead since 1997. This includes both on-road and off-road cycle provision, and the breakdown is as follows:

  Miles

  Millennium Route (part)

  2.80

  Beaufort Road cycle route

  0.69

  Beechwood cycle route

  0.56

  Total

  4.05

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of priority bus lanes have been created in Birkenhead since 1997. [166499]

  Dr. Howells
  0.60 miles of priori bus lanes have been created in Birkenhead since 1997. They are as follows:

  Miles

  Hamilton Square

  align="right">0.08

  Borough Road (West)

  0.25

  Borough Road (East)

  0.06

  Singleton Avenue

  0.03

  A41 near Bolton Road

  0.10

  Woodchurch Road (Prenton)

  0.08

  Total

  0.60

  610W

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Departmental Communications
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Leader of the House (1) how many staff are employed in the Office to work in the communications field, broken down by(a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisers and (iii) others; [158159]

  (2) what the total expenditure on communications for his Office has been in 2003–04, broken down by expenditure on (a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisers and (iii) others. [158206]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is as follows:

  Expenditure in 2003–04

  £

  GICs

  0

  Press Officers

  10

  Special Advisers

  2—

  Others

  341,348

  1My Office does not employ any GICs staff or Press Officers directly. Press Office services are provided by the Cabinet Office at no charge.

  2 The Special Advisers' Code of Conduct sets out the sort of work a special adviser may undertake on behalf of their Minister. This includes communications activity. Details of the costs of Special Advisers are given on an annual basis. Information for the financial year 2003–04 will be published in due course.

  3 Cost of development and hosting of a new website. This work is contracted out by this Office.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EU (Recognition of Qualifications)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the proposed European Directive on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, with particular reference to the impact on the free movement of healthcare professionals; and what assessment she has made of the report adopted by the European Parliament on the Directive. [166873]

  Jacqui Smith
  I welcome the simplification and rationalisation of existing rules relating to professional recognition, in particular new flexibilities proposed for temporary, cross-frontier provision of services. Simpler conditions for services provision will help improve labour mobility across the European Union and contribute to the creation of a real single market in services.

  The European Commission and Council have recognised the need for controls for health professionals and I agree that prior checks of qualifications are necessary in some sectors, where human health and safety are at risk. In the case of health professionals, the UK is seeking to maintain current provisions for temporary and automatic recognition applying to doctors, dentists, general care nurses, midwives and

  611W
  pharmacists, and is pressing for prior checks before temporary services provision in the cases of other health professionals.

  The European Parliament has proposed a large number of amendments to the text of the draft Directive, which have yet to be incorporated by the Commission into a revised text. A re-assessment of the draft Directive will be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education when the revised text has been presented to the Council.

  Internet Fraud
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the Home Office about combating fraud committed over the internet. [166737]

  Mr. Timms
  The Home Office leads on e-crime and sets a comprehensive framework of action. DTI and HO officials are in regular contact to consider the whole range of cybercrime issues and how they impact on the interests of businesses and consumers. DTI officials are represented on the Internet Crime Forum which brings together Government, law enforcement agencies and internet industry to tackle crime and foster business and public confidence in the use of the internet. The Forum is actively considering future work on internet fraud. My officials are also in regular contact with the relevant law enforcement authorities to explore how best to convey crime prevention messages and how best users may manage their systems to enable the efficient detection and investigation of on-line crime.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list law companies who have not responded to the request to repay amounts overcharged to miners and their widows in respect of processing miners' compensation claims; and if she will make a statement. [166422]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 21 April 2004]: Following is a list of solicitors who have either stated they do not intend to repay claimants, or did not respond to my letter about refunding overpayments or who have requested that they be removed from the DTI list of approved solicitors.

  As you will be aware, my letters of December 2003 and February 2004 to all firms of solicitors handling these claims asked that those who had unfairly taken a proportion of miners' compensation to repay the money. I wrote to the Law Society asking them to take action to ensure that their members voluntarily refund any fees taken, rather than wait for miners to contact them. I also passed the names of all firms who did not reply, to the Law Society asking them to take urgent action to ensure that the firms comply with my request.

  After looking into the issue, the Law Society has concluded that such double charging is unlikely to be justified, and is 'likely to give rise to a finding of inadequate professional service'.
  612W
  List of all solicitors written to in December and/or February who have been removed from the website because they either failed to respond or asked to be removed

  Alan Curtis Solicitors

  Allan McDougall & Co. Solicitors

  Andrew P. Walker & Co. Solicitors

  Ashington Denton with Bingley Dyson & Furey

  Barber Cartain Solicitors

  Birchall Blackburn

  Bleasdale & Co.

  Brearleys Solicitors

  Brown & Lloyd Solicitors

  Bury & Walkers Solictors

  Carter Hodge Solicitors

  Castle Sanderson Solicitors

  Clarke & Ross W.S

  Clive Ashman Solicitors

  Coleman Solicitors

  Coley & Tilley

  Cunningham Turner

  D. W. Shaw Solicitors

  DA Milligan & Co. Solicitors

  Dave Johnson

  David Handy Solicitors

  DMH

  Easthams Solicitors

  Edgar Cule & Evans Solicitors

  Edwards Abrams Doherty Solicitors

  Elsbury-Priddin Solicitors

  Emsleys

  Emsleys Solicitors

  Endlars Solicitors

  Evans & Greaves

  Everatt & Co.

  Freed Kemp Rapport

  Freeman Johnson

  G. M. Wilson Solicitors

  Gabb & Co.

  Gabb & Co.

  Gartside Harding & Davies

  Grainger Appleyard & Fleming

  Granville-West Chivers & Morgan

  Granville-West Chivers & Morgan

  Grunhut Makepeace & Duffy

  Hamilton Joseph & Co. Solicitors

  Hardesty Elleanor Solicitors

  Harris & Cartwright Solicitors

  Harrison Bundey & Co.

  Harvey Ingram Solicitors

  Hattersleys Solicitors

  Heyman & Co.

  Hickmotts Solicitors

  Holmes & Moffitt Solicitors

  Howard & Co. Solicitors

  Inghams

  Ingrams Solicitors

  Ingrams Solicitors

  613W

  J. H. Powell & Co. Solicitors

  J. N. Bell B.A. Solicitor

  J. P. Hall Solicitors

  J. Peter Davies & Partners

  Jack Thornley & Partners Solicitors

  James Pearce & Co.

  Jamiesons

  John D. Williams Solicitors

  John E. Millar & Co.

  John Hogg & Co.

  John Howell & Co. Solicitors

  John O'Neill Solicitors

  Jones-Keppe

  Kate Patterson & Co. Solicitors

  Lester Morrill Solicitors

  Lofthouse & Co. Solicitors

  Lopian Wagner Solicitors

  Lucas & Co.

  Maclaren Britain

  Maidments Solicitors

  Maidments Solicitors

  Matthew 0. Byrne Law Office

  Miller Samuel & Company Solicitors

  Moseley Chapman & Kemp

  Murray, Hamilton & Chalmers

  Nimmo Thomson & McLean Solicitors

  Park Hutchison Solicitors & Notaries

  Payne Marsh & Stillwell

  Plancey & Co.

  Pollard Coutts & Co.

  Ralph & Co. Solicitors

  Richards & Lewis Solicitors

  Roger James, Clements & Partners

  Scanlan Westgarth Solicitors

  Schofields

  Sentley Wilson Bowen Solicitors

  Silverbeck Rymer Solicitors

  Silverman Livermore Solicitors

  Spicketts

  Stephensons Solicitors

  Stripes Solicitors

  Thomas & Co. Solicitors

  Thomas Eggar Church Adams.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the British Chamber of Commerce on the subject of regulatory impact assessments. [166454]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I meet Mr. David Frost, the Director General of BCC regularly, most recently at the BCC Conference on 21 April where I took part in a panel discussion on RIAs. I understand the BCC welcomes the Government's work on RIAs.

  Renewable Energy
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress her Department is making on promoting the environmental benefits of renewable energy. [167003]

  Mr. Timms
  I launched the "It's only natural" campaign in February. This will initially target key decision makers in the financial and planning sectors to ensure that they are equipped with the best information for making decisions regarding renewable energy. The campaign will continue to the end of March 2005 and there is a £2 million budget for the project.

  Royal Mail
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the operational efficiency of Royal Mail; what action she is taking to improve the standards of delivery of domestic mail; and if she will make a statement. [167199]

  Mr. Timms
  The assessment of the operational efficiency of Royal Mail and any action to be taken to improve the standards of delivery of domestic mail is a matter for the postal regulator, Postcomm.

  Small Businesses (Tynemouth)
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent action her Department has taken to support small businesses in Tynemouth constituency. [165362]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In his budget statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a number of steps to help small businesses including an increase of capital allowances to 50 per cent. and raising VAT registration threshold to 58 per cent. all of which helps Small Businesses in Tynemouth.

  The Chancellor also announced that the Employer Training Pilot, which has been running in Tyne and Wear for the last year, would be rolled out and made available to businesses throughout the North East. This helps businesses to improve the skills of their workforce by providing training tailored to their needs. The programme not only offers free tailored advice on training but also the unique prospect of subsidised training and wage compensation to employers for the time workers are away from work—traditionally one of the biggest barriers to training in smaller companies.

  The core funding provided to Business Link Tyne and Wear, has provided a foundation on which the Business Link has sourced additional funding projected at £14.5 million for the benefit of businesses in Tyne and Wear, for the year 2004–05.

  Around £3.5 million of this is available, including a subsidy of up to 50 per cent. for management development training and upskilling the workforce to SME's across Tyne and Wear.

  Businesses can also benefit from a range of Workforce Development services to help SMEs achieve the Investors in People Standard and develop their workforce. One business based in Tynemouth, received 50 per cent. subsidy to help them towards paying their Investors in People assessment fees. SMEs with between

  615W
  5 and 49 employees are also eligible for additional funding towards helping them to reach the standard. In the past, financial subsidies towards consultancy costs were only available to businesses over 36 months old, and these were restricted to specific projects. Now, a subsidy of up to 45 per cent. can be accessed by businesses of any age or size towards the cost of any business related consultancy. Around £4 million is available for this purpose.

  Local SMEs can also benefit from up to 45 per cent. funding towards the cost of exhibition space and the design build and dressing of a stand. In conjunction with this, Business Link Tyne and Wear have held three `Meet the Buyer' events over the last two years as a means for local SMEs to meet buyers from both within and beyond the region, offering SME's the opportunity to become integral cogs in supply chains.

  Business Link Tyne and Wear has helped a number of businesses in the Tynemouth area to access financial assistance, one such SME received a 45 per cent. subsidy to help them to develop their website. They also went on to receive an additional 50 per cent. subsidy towards the cost of training, to enable staff to update the website once developed.

  In addition, a restaurant in Tynemouth, received 50 per cent. funding towards Management Development training, they also had consultancy assistance, to help them to develop a marketing strategy.

  Unsecured loans of up to £15,000 are also available to businesses in the North East that have had difficulty accessing finance elsewhere. Businesses must work with a mentor and repay the loan within five years.

  Over the past 15 months Business Link has received 660 inquiries from existing businesses and people looking to start their own business in North Tyneside. Of these, 43 existing, and 22 start up inquiries were from Tynemouth. 670 businesses have started in North Tyneside. They are offered an independent service of one-to-one 'counselling' and given intensive advice on business planning, marketing and finance.

  An adviser from Business Link and North Tyneside Council's advisers work side by side at North Tyneside Council's premises in North Shields to provide advice and support to businesses based in North Tyneside, including Tynemouth. In addition, an adviser is based in Tynemouth and North Tyneside Colleges two days a week to offer advice to anyone that is looking to start or already running a business.

  Tyne and Wear Small Business Fund, through the Regional Development Agency's Single Programme Funding, (Managed by Tyne and Wear Development Company and delivered by each local authority) is a 50 per cent. Capital Equipment Grant of between £500 and £2,500 available to pre-start and new businesses—up to 12 months old.

  The Regional Service for Clustering (RSC), also funded by the Dti, through the RDA, helps groups of SME's collaborate support across Tyne and Wear—this project is based in North Tyneside.

  North Tyneside Council also provides free business advice and guidance to all businesses setting up in North Tyneside.
  616W

  Steel
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the supply of steel in the UK for manufacturing industries. [167188]

  Jacqui Smith
  Global steel prices have risen sharply in recent months as a result of rising input costs and market demand. This is causing difficulties for certain steel using industries where they have limited scope for passing on the increased cost to customers. There have been reports of tightness in the steel supply market, with imports to the EU reduced, but I understand that all types of steel remain available, although prices are high. There is no shortage of supply from UK steel producers.

  Textiles
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were employed in the textile industry in 1997; and how many are employed in it now. [165383]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is as follows:

  thousands

  Employee jobs in textile and clothing industries (SIC 17–18)

  June 1997

  347

  June 2003

  180

  December 2003

  171

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics Annual Business Inquiry and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment Northern Ireland Quarterly Employment Survey.

  Employee jobs in local units of Standard Industrial Classification division 17 (textiles) and division 18 (clothing).

  Wind Energy
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost is per kilowatt hour of electricity generated by(a) offs bore wind and (b) onshore wind; and if she will make a statement. [167200]

  Mr. Timms
  Modelling carried out to support the recent Innovation Review puts the current estimated cost of onshore wind generation at 3.1–4 p/kWh expected to fall to? 2.5–3.2 p/kWh by 2020 and offshore wind genera ion at 6.0–7.6 p/kWh expected to fall to? 3.0–l4.6 p/kWh by 2020.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the environmental impact of wind farms. [167012]

  Mr. Timms
  The Energy White Paper published in February 2003 set out the Government's energy policy to tackle the crucial environmental challenge of climate change. The challenge we face is to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, one of the main causes of climate charge, which have risen by more than a third since the industrial revolution and are now rising faster than at any time in the past.

  The Government has set the target of obtaining 10 per cent. of our electricity from renewable sources by 2010, with the aspiration of doubling this by 2020.
  617W
  Renewable energy will make an important contribution to the Government's wider climate change programme. It is estimated that increased renewable energy generation, to meet the 2010 target, will deliver additional carbon savings of some 2.5 million tonnes of carbon per year by 2010, and that doubling this by 2020 would achieve further cuts of some 3 to 5 million tonnes of carbon per year above that by 2020. Wind power is expected to make the largest contribution of between 7 and 8 per cent. towards the 2010 renewable electricity generation target and the positive environmental impact that will make.

  Under the normal planning regime and for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 or the Transport and Works Act 1992 wind farm developers are required to consider all environmental aspects of wind energy projects and produce an Environmental Impact Assessment. These assessments are available to the public.

  Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the IT industry about the recommendations of the industry forum for Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access; and if she will make a statement. [166883]

  Mr. Timms
  Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access, commonly referred to as Wi-Max, is a North American based industry initiative to promote open interoperability between products designed for broadband wireless access. We welcome efforts to improve standards of interoperability between vendor products through industry initiatives. The Department participates in several fora where these standards are generated and used. My officials have discussed the initiative in regular meetings with companies concerned in this sector. Use of wireless relies on availability of essential spectrum, which in the UK is now the responsibility of the new independent regulator for communications—Ofcom. Accordingly, my officials have asked the Chief Executive of Ofcom to respond to my hon. Friend. Copies of the Chief Executive's letter will be placed in the Libraries of tire House.

HEALTH

  Allergies
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the extent of Government research and development programmes on allergies. [165062]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Details of research projects relating to allergies funded by, or of interest to, the national health service are recorded on the National Research Register (NRR) at www.update-software.com/national. The NRR currently contains details c f over 100 on-going projects in this area, as well as a larger number of completed projects. Much of this work is funded through allocations made annually to NHS providers for research and development o meet the priorities and needs of the NHS and to meet the costs to the NHS of hosting research supported by external funders. The total amount allocated to NHS providers in 2003–04 618W
  for research and development was?442 million. In addition, the Department is funding research on air pollution and asthma under its policy research programme.

  In 2001–02, expenditure by the Medical Research Council on its respiratory disorders portfolio was an estimated £11.9 million, which included work on allergies and asthma.

  The Food Standards Agency funds research on food allergy and intolerance, with particular emphasis on severe allergies, how they occur and what causes them. A large programme of research on food intolerance and allergy, costing around £1 million a year is ongoing.

  Consultants
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital consultants retired in the last quarter of(a) 2002c03 and (b) 2003–04. [165886]

  Mr. Hutton
  Retirement data in the format requested and figures for 2003–04 are not available. The number of consultants in England and Wales, who received a pension from the National Health Service Pension Scheme in the year to 31 March 2003, is shown as follows:1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003
  Consultant Pension Awards: 451

  Pension scheme records are continually, and retrospectively, being updated to reflect further membership activity and revised data. This data extract therefore represents a snapshot in time as at August 2003.

  Dementia
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what data collection systems are in place to record the(a) number and (b) costs of drugs for dementia supplied to acute and mental health trusts; [166549]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that accurate out-turn figures are available for the (a) number and (b) costs of drugs for dementia supplied to acute and mental health trusts; [166550]

  (3) if he will discuss with acute and mental health trusts the provision of systems to ensure accurate out-turn figures for the (a) number and (b) costs of drugs for dementia supplied to acute and mental health trusts. [166551]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In 2002–03 national health service trusts in England spent £1,942.8 million on the purchase of medicines, including medical gases. Detail of the break down of this figure into different therapeutic classes of medicines is not available.

  The national programme for information technology is charged with delivering the IT strategy for the NHS. Details were set out in "Delivering 21st Century IT Support for the NHS". The implementation of this national IT strategy will enable the collection and analysis of more detailed information on the use of medicines by the NHS.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics will be available centrally from his Department on NHS foundation trusts. [166438]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department will continue to publish statistics on the performance of the national health service as a whole. This will include information on services commissioned by primary care trusts and provided by NHS trusts, NHS foundation trusts, diagnosis and treatment centers and independent sector providers.

  All General Medical Practitioners1 (excluding Gp Retainers) per 100,000 of the population by Strategic Health Authority; 1997-2003, England

  Number (headcount)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  All practitioners (excl. Ret)

  All practitioners (excl. Ret) per 100,000 population

  All practitioners (excl. Ret)

  All practitioners (excl. Ret) per 100,000 population

  All practitioners (excl. Ret)

  All practitioners (excl. Ret) per 100,000 population

  England total

  29,389

  60

  29,697

  61

  29,987

  61

  North East total

  1,485

  58

  1,506

  59

  1,520

  60

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  649

  57

  650

  57

  656

  58

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  836

  59

  856

  61

  864

  62

  North West total

  4,040

  59

  4,044

  60

  4,124

  61

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  1,421

  60

  1,413

  60

  1,456

  62

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  1,134

  60

  1,147

  60

  1,158

  61

  Greater Manchester

  1,485

  59

  1,484

  59

  1,510

  60

  Yorkshire and the Humber total

  3,021

  61

  3,028

  61

  3,092

  63

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  999

  62

  991

  62

  1.011

  63

  South Yorkshire

  758

  59

  758

  59

  772

  61

  West Yorkshire

  1,264

  61

  1,279

  62

  1,309

  63

  East Midlands total

  2,338

  57

  2,361

  58

  2,369

  58

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  908

  60

  902

  59

  898

  58

  Trent

  1,430

  56

  1,459

  57

  1,471

  57

  West Midlands total

  3,026

  58

  3,057

  58

  3,093

  59

  Birmingham and The Black Country

  1,327

  58

  1,343

  59

  1,357

  60

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  792

  54

  813

  55

  830

  56

  West Midlands South

  907

  60

  901

  60

  906

  60

  East of England total

  3,080

  58

  3,141

  59

  3,156

  59

  Bedford and Hertfordshire

  915

  59

  944

  60

  948

  60

  Essex

  849

  54

  862

  54

  860

  54

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  1,316

  62

  1,335

  62

  1,348

  62

  London total

  4,532

  65

  4,515

  65

  4,496

  64

  North Central London

  788

  69

  802

  70

  786

  68

  North East London

  888

  62

  896

  62

  894

  61

  North West London

  1,209

  73

  1,188

  71

  1.134

  67

  South East London

  868

  60

  862

  59

  901

  61

  South West London

  779

  62

  767

  61

  781

  62

  South East total

  4,682

  60

  4,788

  61

  4,830

  61

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1,060

  61

  1,070

  61

  1,089

  62

  Kent and Medway

  904

  58

  916

  59

  918

  59

  Surrey and Sussex

  1,486

  59

  1,518

  60

  1,522

  60

  Thames Valley

  1,232

  60

  1,284

  62

  1,301

  63

  South West total

  3,185

  66

  3,257

  67

  3,307

  68

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  1,325

  63

  1,374

  65

  1,404

  65

  Somerset and Dorset

  794

  68

  820

  70

  843

  72

  South West Peninsula

  1,066

  69

  1,063

  69

  1,060

  68

  620W

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners there were per head of population in(a) England and (b) ach strategic health authority in each year since 1997. [166653]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of general practitioners (excluding retainers) per 100,000 population in England and in each strategic health authority (SHA) since 1997 is shown in the table.

  The Office for National Statistics has not yet published 2003 population data by SHA. Therefore, information for 2003 has only been provided on a national level.
  621W

  Number (headcount)

  2000

  2001

  All practitioners (excl. Ret)

  All practitioners (excl. Ret) per 100,000 population

  All practitioners (excl. Ret)

  All practitioners (excl. Ret) per 100,000 population

  England total

  30,252

  62

  30,685

  62

  North East total

  1,536

  61

  1,603

  64

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  661

  58

  696

  61

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  875

  63

  907

  65

  North West total

  4,134

  61

  4,174

  62

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  1,459

  62

  1,481

  63

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  1,152

  61

  1,174

  62

  Greater Manchester

  1,523

  60

  1,519

  60

  Yorkshire and the Humber total

  3,123

  63

  3,192

  64

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  1,021

  63

  1,039

  64

  South Yorkshire

  778

  61

  794

  63

  West Yorkshire

  1,324

  64

  1.359

  65

  East Midlands total

  2,384

  58

  2,437

  58

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  877

  57

  894

  57

  Trent

  1,507

  58

  1,543

  59

  West Midlands total

  3,142

  60

  3,157

  60

  Birmingham and The Black Country

  1,380

  61

  1,391

  61

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  838

  56

  825

  55

  West Midlands South

  924

  61

  941

  62

  East of England total

  3,183

  59

  3,204

  59

  Bedford and Hertfordshire

  955

  60

  965

  60

  Essex

  857

  53

  851

  53

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  1,371

  63

  1,388

  64

  London total

  4,548

  64

  4,545

  62

  North Central London

  819

  70

  804

  67

  North East London

  925

  62

  899

  59

  North West London

  1,125

  66

  1,150

  65

  South East London

  886

  60

  904

  60

  South West London

  793

  62

  788

  61

  South East total

  4,839

  61

  4,943

  62

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1,099

  62

  1,122

  63

  Kent and Medway

  901

  57

  915

  58

  Surrey and Sussex

  1,531

  60

  1,571

  61

  Thames Valley

  1,308

  63

  1,335

  64

  South West total

  3,363

  69

  3,430

  69

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  1,424

  66

  1,442

  67

  Somerset and Dorset

  846

  71

  867

  73

  South West Peninsula

  1,093

  70

  1,121

  71

  Number (headcount)

  2002

  2003

  All practitioners (excl. Ret)

  All practitioners (excl. Ret) per 100,000 population

  All practitioners (excl. Ret)

  All practitioners (excl. Ret) per 100,000 population

  England total

  31,182

  63

  32,593

  66

  North East total

  1,645

  65

  n/a

  n/a

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  701

  62

  n/a

  n/a

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  944

  68

  n/a

  n/a

  North West total

  4,247

  63

  n/a

  n/a

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  1,536

  65

  n/a

  n/a

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  1,200

  63

  n/a

  n/a

  Greater Manchester

  1,511

  60

  n/a

  n/a

  622W 623W

  Number (headcount)

  2002

  2003

  All practitioners (excl. Ret)

  All practitioners (excl. Ret) per 100,000 population

  All practitioners (excl. Ret)

  All practitioners (excl. Ret) per 100,000 population

  Yorkshire and the Number total

  3,253

  65

  n/a

  n/a

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  1,065

  65

  n/a

  n/a

  South Yorkshire

  808

  64

  n/a

  n/a

  West Yorkshire

  1,380

  66

  n/a

  n/a

  East Midlands total

  2,466

  58

  n/a

  n/a

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  910

  58

  n/a

  n/a

  Trent

  1,556

  59

  n/a

  n/a

  West Midlands total

  3,255

  51

  n/a

  n/a

  Birmingham and The Black Country

  1,428

  i3

  n/a

  n/a

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  861

  58

  n/a

  n/a

  West Midlands South

  966

  63

  n/a

  n/a

  East of England total

  3,223

  59

  n/a

  n/a

  Bedford and Hertfordshire

  976

  51

  n/a

  n/a

  Essex

  846

  52

  n/a

  n/a

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  1,401

  A

  n/a

  n/a

  London total

  4,609

  i3

  n/a

  n/a

  North Central London

  806

  66

  n/a

  n/a

  North East London

  945

  61

  n/a

  n/a

  North West London

  1,139

  64

  n/a

  n/a

  South East London

  902

  60

  n/a

  n/a

  South West London

  817

  63

  n/a

  n/a

  South East total

  5,017

  62

  n/a

  n/a

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1,112

  62

  n/a

  n/a

  Kent and Medway

  911

  57

  n/a

  n/a

  Surrey and Sussex

  1,587

  62

  n/a

  n/a

  Thames Valley

  1,407

  67

  n/a

  n/a

  South West total

  3,467

  70

  n/a

  n/a

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  1,460

  67

  n/a

  n/a

  Somerset and Dorset

  895

  75

  n/a

  n/a

  South West Peninsula

  1,1 12

  70

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a = Not available

  1All Practitioners (excluding GP Retainers) includes GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS Other, Flexible Career Schemes and GP Returners.

  SHA population figures are derived from the 1992-2000 first revised sub national population estimates published by ONS 27 February 2003 and so are not consistent with the interim revised national population estimates for 1992 !002 published by ONS 23 October 2003. Data have been converted to match Strategic Health Authority structures for 2002.

  Data as at 1 October 1997–99,30 September 2000–03.

  Sources:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  2001 ONS Population Census.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole time equivalent general practitioners there were in(a) England and (b) each strategic health authority in each year from September 1997 to September 2003. [166654]

  All practitioners (excluding GP retainers)1 by strategic health authority boundaries: 1997 to 2003

  estimated whole time equivalents

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  March 2002

  2002

  March 2003

  2003

  England

  27,660

  27,848

  28,033

  28,154

  28,439

  28,540

  28,740

  29,180

  29,777

  North East

  1,402

  1,418

  1,426

  1,434

  1,488

  1,494

  1,523

  1,542

  1,602

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  782

  802

  807

  812

  836

  852

  866

  855

  890

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  620

  617

  619

  622

  652

  642

  657

  688

  712

  North West

  3,834

  3,822

  3,880

  3,874

  3,903

  3,923

  3.943

  4,002

  4,058

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  1,079

  1,083

  1,090

  1,079

  1,093

  1,107

  1,103

  1,116

  1,128

  Greater Manchester

  1,409

  1,404

  1,420

  1,424

  1,422

  1,422

  1,409

  1,444

  1,459

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  1,346

  1,335

  1,370

  1,371

  1,388

  1,395

  1,430

  1,442

  1,471

  624W
  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of whole time equivalent (Wte) general practitioners (GPs) (excluding retainers) in England and in each strategic health authority in each year since 1997 is shown in the table.
  625W

  All practitioners (excluding GP retainers)1 by strategic health authority boundaries: 1997 to 2003

  estimated whole time equivalents

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  March 2002

  2002

  March 2003

  2003

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  2,848

  2,843

  2,892

  2,911

  2,950

  2,979

  2,988

  3,037

  3,131

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  944

  934

  951

  959

  968

  985

  989

  998

  1,037

  West Yorkshire

  1,188

  1,198

  1,221

  1,227

  1.248

  1,266

  1,257

  1,298

  1,327

  South Yorkshire

  716

  711

  720

  725

  734

  728

  742

  741

  767

  East Midlands

  2,220

  2,233

  2,227

  2,225

  2,261

  2,236

  2,275

  2,311

  2,357

  Trent

  1,363

  1,382

  1,386

  1,408

  1,434

  1,405

  1,439

  1,462

  1,472

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  857

  851

  841

  817

  827

  831

  836

  849

  886

  West Midlands

  2,877

  2,901

  2,920

  2,959

  2,962

  3,001

  3,034

  3,051

  3,122

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  757

  776

  787

  792

  779

  781

  806

  818

  833

  Birmingham and The Black Country

  1,261

  1,272

  1,279

  1,299

  1,305

  1,317

  1,330

  1,323

  1,371

  West Midlands South

  859

  853

  853

  869

  878

  903

  898

  910

  918

  East of England

  2,901

  2,955

  2,963

  2,979

  2,987

  2,997

  2,991

  3,040

  3,134

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  1,227

  1,243

  1,250

  1,268

  1,276

  1,276

  1,277

  1,297

  1,346

  Bedford and Hertfordshire

  869

  892

  894

  897

  906

  906

  914

  918

  938

  Essex

  805

  819

  819

  814

  805

  814

  800

  826

  849

  London

  4,225

  4,212

  4,198

  4,217

  4,212

  4,229

  4,288

  4,398

  4,490

  North West London

  1,107

  1,097

  1,055

  1,044

  1,064

  1,043

  1,056

  1,085

  1,087

  North Central London

  738

  741

  727

  748

  746

  755

  759

  760

  797

  North East London

  835

  845

  844

  866

  841

  859

  888

  919

  913

  South East London

  814

  810

  840

  825

  833

  820

  830

  872

  893

  South West London

  731

  720

  732

  735

  727

  752

  755

  762

  799

  South East

  4,410

  4,482

  4,512

  4.507

  4,579

  4,602

  4,608

  4,670

  4,711

  Thames Valley

  1,145

  1,186

  1,198

  1,202

  1,218

  1,236

  1,268

  1,273

  1,279

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  996

  999

  1,014

  1,017

  1,037

  1,041

  1,022

  1,047

  1,080

  Kent and Medway

  860

  867

  868

  853

  860

  855

  854

  863

  868

  Surrey and Sussex

  1,410

  1,430

  1,432

  1,435

  1,464

  1,469

  1,464

  1,487

  1,485

  South West

  2,942

  2,981

  3,014

  3,048

  3,097

  3,079

  3,091

  3,128

  3,172

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  1,225

  1,257

  1,281

  1,289

  1,301

  1,300

  1,302

  1,316

  1,338

  South West Peninsula

  990

  981

  972

  1,000

  1,025

  1,012

  1,006

  1,039

  1.040

  Somerset and Dorset

  727

  744

  761

  759

  771

  768

  783

  773

  794

  1All practitioners (excluding GP retainers) includes GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs, PMS salaried GPs, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS other, flexible career scheme GPs and GP returners.

  Notes:

  1. Data as at 1 October 1997–99, 30 Sep ember 2000–03, 31 March 2002–03.

  2. WTE data has been estimated using the results from the 1992–93 GMP Workload Survey; Full time—1.00 wte; three quarter time—0.69 wte; job share—0.65 wte; half time—0.60 wte.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of(a) medical and dental staff and (b) administration and estates staff was in each year from 1997–98 to 2002–03 (i) in cash terms and (ii) as a proportion of total NHS expenditure. [166656]

  Mr. Hutton
  Table 1 shows expenditure on medical and dental staff in cash terms in England, for financial years 1997–98 to 2002–03.

  Table 2 shows expenditure on administrative and estates staff in cash terms in England, for financial years 1997–98 to 2002–03.

  Table 3 shows expenditure on medical and dental staff as a proportion of total na ional health service expenditure, for financial years 1997–98 to 2002–03.

  Table 4 shows expenditure on administrative and estates staff as a proportion of total NHS expenditure, for financial years 1997–98 to 2002–3.
  626W

  Table 1: Hospital and community health services expenditure on medical and dental staff in England 1997–98 to 2002–03>

  £

  Total expenditure

  1997–98

  3,021,917,492

  1998–99

  3,300,976,457

  1999–2000

  3,664,710,847

  2000–01

  4"138,320,465

  2001–02

  4.790,866,706

  2002–03

  5,445,120,598

  Table 2: Hospital and community health services expenditure on administration and estates staff in England 1997–98 to 2002–03

  £

  Total expenditure

  1997–98

  2,962,032,067

  1998–99

  3,122,153,228

  1999–2000

  3,368,608,095

  2000–01

  3,705,851,155

  2001–02

  4,175,084,314

  2002–03

  4,710,704,403

  627W

  Table 3: Hospital and community health services expenditure on medical and dental staff in England 1997–98 to 2002–03 as a proportion of total net NHS expenditure (England)

  Percentage of total expenditure

  1997–98

  8.72

  1998–99

  9.02

  1999–2000

  9.19

  2000–01

  9.42

  2001–02

  9.72

  2002–03

  10.02

  Table 4: Hospital and community health services expenditure on administration and estates staff in England 1997–98 to 2002–03 as a proportion of total net NHS expenditure (England)

  Percentage of total expenditure

  1997–98

  8.54

  1998–99

  8.53

  1999–2000

  8.45

  2000–01

  8.43

  2001–02

  8.47

  2002–03

  8.67

  Sources:

  Expenditure on administration and estates staff:

  Annual financial returns of NHS trusts 1997–98 to 2002–03

  Annual financial returns of health authorities 1997–98 to 2001–02

  Annual financial returns of strategic health authorities 2002–03

  Annual financial returns of primary care trusts 2000–01 to 2002–03

  Total expenditure:

  From 1997–98 to 1999–2000—Departmental Report 2001 (Cm 5103)

  From 2000–01 to 2002–03—Departmental Report 2003 (Cm 5904).

  Nursing
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reason his Department ceased in October 2001 to collect data on the proportion of student nurses who successfully complete courses in(a) general nursing, (b) paediatric nursing, (c) midwifery and (d) psychiatric nursing; [166353]

  (2) what targets his Department has for reducing the attrition rate among student nurses; [166354]

  (3) what targets his Department set in March 2001 for reducing the attrition rate among student nurses. [166355]

  Mr. Hutton
  The English National Board for Nursing (ENB) collected information on the attrition rate from nursing and midwifery courses until its abolition in March 2002 with the creation of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). A new attrition data collection system administered by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) has been put in place, from which the information will be available in due course. A single and consistent definition of attrition has also been agreed with higher education institutions.

  The latest complete information on attrition from nurse training courses relates to the 1997–98 cohort and averaged 20 per cent. across all branches. The human resources performance framework, published in October 2000, set a target of 13 per cent. attrition for students entering nurse training in 2000–01. Workforce
  628W
  development confederations and strategic health authorities are working with higher education institutions to meet this target locally.

  Postcode Prescribing
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to tackle the large local variations in the availability of chemotherapy and other systemic therapies across England identified by the National Audit Office in its report on cancer services. [R] [164684]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr Gibson) on 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 173W.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will undertake a review of the funding allocation for the Buckinghamshire primary care trusts before 2006. [166817]

  Mr. Hutton
  Work on the next round of funding allocations, covering, the period up to 2007–08, has already commenced. The Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation will oversee issues relating to the next round of funding allocations. The development of the allocations policy will involve consideration of funding for all primary care trusts.

  Social Services Departments
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many social services departments do not have an intervenor service for deafblind children. [166854]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 21 April 2004]: Guidance published by the Department in 2001 required local authorities to ensure the provision of specifically trained one-to-one support workers for deafblind people assessed as needing one. The 2001 guidance refers to intervenor services as one form of support. Sense, the charity for deafblind people, recently estimated that 19 per cent. of social services departments are providing intervenors for at least one person.

  Supporting People Scheme
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasury on the overspend on the Supporting People budget. [167855]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I met my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper) on 13 January. I attended an inter-ministerial meeting c n this subject on 14 January.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to local Supporting People teams on the implications of the budget overspend. [167856]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Advice to local Supporting People teams is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Apprenticeships (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many residents of Manchester, Gorton have undertaken apprenticeships in each of the last five years. [167437]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not available at parliamentary constituency level. Nor is the information available on a consistent geographical basis over the last five years. However, the following table shows the number of starts on modern apprenticeships in the Greater Manchester Learning and Skills Council (LSC) area between April 2001 and the end of July 2003, as well as the number of starts from April 1996 to March 2001 in the six Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) that amalgamated into Greater Manchester LSC—Bolton and Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and High Peak and Wigan.

  Number of starts on modern apprenticeships in the Greater Manchester Learning and Skills Council (LSC) plus number of starts in the six Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs)

  TEC/LSC

  Advanced MAs

  Foundation MAs

  April 1998 to March 19991

  Bolton and Bury CCTE

  800

  600

  Manchester

  2,400

  700

  Oldham CCTE

  400

  300

  Rochdale CCTE

  500

  100

  Stockport and High Peak2

  800

  100

  Wigan CCTE

  700

  300

  April 1999 to March 20001

  Bolton and Bury CCTE

  900

  1000

  Manchester

  2,800

  1,800

  Oldham CCTE

  500

  500

  First Degree Graduates1 from UK HE institutions by subject

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  Subject group

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Medicine and dentistry

  5,900

  2

  5,842

  2

  5,966

  2

  Subjects allied to medicine

  16,284

  6

  17,593

  7

  17,789

  7

  Biological sciences

  16,885

  7

  17,359

  7

  18,449

  7

  Veterinary science

  494

  0

  528

  0

  558

  0

  Agriculture and related subjects

  2,266

  1

  2,329

  1

  2,342

  1

  Physical sciences

  13,296

  5

  13,056

  5

  13,184

  5

  Mathematical sciences

  3,939

  2

  4,250

  2

  4,094

  2

  Computer science/IT

  9,991

  4

  10,380

  4

  11,211

  4

  Engineering and technology

  22,574

  9

  22,012

  8

  20,551

  8

  Architecture, building and planning

  7,273

  3

  7,223

  3

  6,587

  2

  Social, economic and political studies

  20,736

  8

  21,574

  8

  22,715

  9

  Law

  9,889

  4

  9,982

  4

  10,210

  4

  Business and administrative studies

  29,401

  11

  30,937

  12

  31,905

  12

  Librarianship and information science

  3,468

  1

  3,803

  1

  4,597

  2

  Languages

  16,388

  6

  15,965

  616,619

  6

  Humanities

  10,391

  4

  10,411

  4

  10,362

  4

  Creative arts and design

  19,390

  7

  20,300

  8

  21,263

  8

  Education

  13,788

  5

  13,520

  5

  11,935

  4

  Combined

  36,400

  14

  36,607

  14

  34,930

  13

  Total

  258,753

  100

  263,671

  100

  265,267

  100

  630W

  Number of starts on modern apprenticeships in the Greater Manchester Learning and Skills Council (LSC) plus number of starts in the six Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs)

  TEC/LSC

  Advanced MAs

  Foundation MAs

  Rochdale CCTE

  500

  600

  Stockport and High Peak2

  700

  700

  Wigan CCTE

  700

  600

  April 2000 to March 20011

  Bolton and Bury CCTE

  700

  1,200

  Manchester

  3,200

  2,600

  Oldham CCTE

  500

  700

  Rochdale CCTE

  400

  700

  Stockport and High Peak2

  800

  1,000

  Wigan CCTE

  900

  800

  April 2001 to July 20021

  Greater Manchester LSC

  4,800

  9,800

  March 2001 to July 20021

  Greater Manchester LSC

  2,900

  6,800

  1Time period.

  2 TEC also became part of Derbyshire LSC

  Source:

  TEC management information

  LSC Individualised Learner Record

  Degree Courses
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what proportion of students graduated from (a) skills-based and (b) academic degree courses in each year between 1997 and 2003; and if he will make a statement. [153536]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information on first degree graduates is taken from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) Student Record and is given in the table. Figures are given on a subject of study basis.
  631W

  2000/01

  2001/02

  2002/032,3

  Subject group

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Medicine and dentistry

  5,964

  2

  6,079

  2

  6,114

  2

  Subjects allied to medicine

  19,474

  7

  20,934

  8

  22,252

  8

  Biological sciences

  18,550

  7

  18,185

  7

  23,168

  8

  Veterinary science

  581

  0

  622

  0

  561

  0

  Agriculture and related subjects

  2,297

  1

  2,315

  1

  2,109

  1

  Physical sciences

  13,021

  5

  12,187

  5

  12,096

  4

  Mathematical sciences

  4,220

  2

  4,066

  2

  4,993

  2

  Computer science/IT

  12,504

  5

  13,857

  5

  17,385

  6

  Engineering and technology

  19,802

  7

  19,760

  7

  18,742

  7

  Architecture, building and planning

  6,246

  2

  6,180

  2

  6,267

  2

  Social, economic and political studies

  21,982

  8

  21,757

  8

  24,435

  9

  Law

  10,034

  4

  9,866

  4

  11,405

  4

  Business and administrative studies

  32,635

  12

  32,628

  12

  38,677

  14

  Librarianship and information science

  4,547

  2

  5,245

  2

  7,146

  3

  Languages

  16,550

  6

  15,488

  6

  19,670

  7

  Humanities

  9,855

  4

  9,816

  4

  13,071

  5

  Creative arts and design

  22,207

  8

  23,026

  9

  26,054

  10

  Education

  11,784

  4

  12,474

  5

  9,301

  3

  Combined

  33,093

  12

  32,569

  12

  9,343

  3

  Total

  265,346

  100

  267,054

  100

  272,788

  100

  1Figures include both home and overseas students.

  2 Figures for 2002/03 are provisional.

  3 The Joint Academic Coding of Subjects (JACS) coding frame was introduced in 2002/03 and replaces HESA's HESACODE classification which was used for years up to and including 2001/02. The main effect of this is to reduce the number of students in the Combined course category and increase those who are allocated to specific subject groups.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many and what proportion of students enrolled on(a) skills-based and (b) academic degree courses in each year between 1997 and 2003; and if he will make a statement; [153538]

  (2) how many and what proportion of students he estimates will enrol on (a) skills-based and (b) academic degree courses in each year between 2004 and 2010; and if he will make a statement. [153537]

  First Degree Enrolments1 at UK HE institutions by subject

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  Subject group

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Medicine and dentistry

  28,508

  3

  29,032

  3

  29,202

  3

  Subjects allied to medicine

  67,474

  7

  72,288

  7

  75,517

  8

  Biological sciences

  65,932

  7

  66,550

  7

  67,624

  7

  Veterinary science

  2,547

  0

  2,689

  0

  2,846

  0

  Agriculture and related subjects

  7,766

  1

  8,045

  1

  7,518

  1

  Physical sciences

  50,723

  5

  50,222

  5

  49,113

  5

  Mathematical sciences

  15,990

  2

  15,677

  2

  15,633

  2

  Computer science/IT

  47,797

  5

  52,008

  5

  55,973

  6

  Engineering and technology

  87,079

  9

  84,783

  8

  81,372

  8

  Architecture, building and planning

  28,394

  3

  27,372

  3

  26,561

  3

  Social, economic and political studies

  77,561

  8

  79,856

  8

  81,601

  8

  Law

  40,528

  4

  40,535

  4

  39,457

  4

  Business and administrative studies

  112,727

  11

  116,658

  12

  117,408

  12

  Librarianship and information science

  13,789

  1

  14,584

  1

  17,121

  2

  Languages

  63,119

  6

  61,487

  6

  61,699

  6

  Humanities

  36,186

  4

  35,127

  4

  34,589

  3

  Creative arts and design

  73,628

  7

  76,576

  8

  78,819

  8

  Education

  51,896

  5

  49,702

  5

  47,138

  5

  Combined

  117,466

  12

  118,576

  12

  111,020

  11

  Total

  989,110

  100

  1,001,767

  100

  1,000,211

  100

  632W
  Alan Johnson
  The available information on first degree enrolments is taken from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) Student Record and is given in the table. Figures are given on a subject of study basis.

  Projections of student numbers on a subject basis are not available centrally.
  633W

  2000/01

  2001/02

  2002/032,3

  Subject group

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Medicine and dentistry

  30,008

  3

  31,324

  3

  33,063

  3

  Subjects allied to medicine

  77,795

  8

  84,131

  8

  88,535

  8

  Biological sciences

  68,108

  7

  68,913

  7

  93,373

  9

  Veterinary science

  3,015

  0

  3,251

  0

  3,043

  0

  Agriculture and related subjects

  7,418

  1

  7,418

  1

  7,171

  1

  Physical sciences

  46,838

  5

  44,575

  4

  48,111

  4

  Mathematical sciences

  15,869

  2

  15,974

  2

  19,426

  2

  Computer science/IT

  62,245

  6

  68,709

  7

  80,672

  8

  Engineering and technology

  79,665

  8

  79,777

  8

  78,774

  7

  Architecture, building and planning

  25,657

  3

  25,221

  2

  25,543

  2

  Social, economic and political studies

  81,517

  8

  82,248

  8

  96,528

  9

  Law

  39,887

  4

  41,599

  4

  49,936

  5

  Business and administrative studies

  118,336

  12

  121,012

  12

  144,712

  13

  Librarianship and information science

  18,608

  2

  21,252

  2

  29,376

  3

  Languages

  59,575

  6

  58,275

  6

  76,804

  7

  Humanities

  34,972

  3

  36,042

  3

  50,632

  5

  Creative arts and design

  82,221

  8

  86,515

  8

  99,855

  9

  Education

  47,704

  5

  49,908

  5

  38,104

  4

  Combined

  104,474

  10

  106,184

  10

  9,131

  1

  Total

  1,003,912

  100

  1,032,328

  100

  1,072,789

  100

  1 Figures include both home and overseas students.

  2 Figures for 2002/03 are provisional.

  3 The Joint Academic Coding of Subjects (JACS) coding frame was introduced in 2002/03 and replaces HESA's HESACODE classification which was used for years up to and including 2001/02. The main effect of this is to reduce the number of students in the combined course category and increase those who are allocated to specific subject groups.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency.

  Early Years Development
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many playgroup places were available in each year since 1997. [163141]

  Number of registered childcare places1 by type of provider England 1997–2003—Position at 31 March each year

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  22002

  32003

  Day nurseries4

  193,800

  223,000

  247,700

  264,200

  285,100

  n/a

  n/a

  Full day care5

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  383,200

  Playgroups and pre-schools4

  383,700

  383,600

  347,200

  353,100

  330,200

  n/a

  n/a

  Sessional day care5

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  279,700

  Childminders

  365,200

  370,700

  336,600

  320,400

  304,600

  n/a

  317,200

  Out of school clubs4

  78,700

  92,300

  113,800

  141,100

  152,800

  n/a

  n/a

  Holiday schemes4,5

  20S,000

  256,500

  435,300

  6490,400

  550,400

  n/a

  n/a

  Out of school day care7

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  322,200

  Creche day care7

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  37,200

  n/a = Not available

  1 Figures have been rounded

  2 2002 was a transitional year when Ofsted established its databases and validated the actual number of individuals and organisations that were providing childcare

  3 The number of childcare places and providers are not directly comparable because they were collected differently

  4Data Source: Children's Day Care Facilities

  5 From 1999, places at holiday schemes were counted once for each school holiday during the year. Prior to 1999, places were counted once only

  6 Includes those schemes exempt from registration

  7Data Source: Ofsted

  With the introduction of the National Day Care Standards and the transfer of responsibilities for registration and inspection to Ofsted, childcare places are classified according to whether they are full day care, sessional day care, childminder, out of school day care or crèche day care places. Previously, childcare places were classified according to whether they were provided by day nurseries, playgroups and pre-schools, childminders, out of school clubs or holiday schemes. Figures for 2003 are not directly comparable with
  634W
  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available information is shown in the table.

  figures for earlier years because they are collected on a different basis. Some playgroups and pre-schools provide full day care and some former playgroups and pre-schools have converted to day nurseries.

  Statistics on the number of childcare places registered in England were published on 19 February 2004 in a report by Ofsted "Registered Childcare Providers and Places in England, 31 December 2003'. The report is available on the Ofsted website www.ofsted.gov.uk/ publications.
  635W

  University Attendance (Greater London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people attended university from Greater London in each year since 1996, broken down by local education authority. [163069]

  Home domiciled applicants accepted for entry to HE through UCAS

  Year of entry

  LEA

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Barking

  292

  481

  497

  517

  517

  592

  714

  Barnet

  2,325

  2,653

  2,643

  2,643

  2,727

  2,809

  2,870

  Bexley

  801

  897

  926

  817

  961

  990

  1,032

  Brent

  2,027

  2,288

  2,176

  2,387

  2,444

  2,415

  2,479

  Bromley

  1,446

  1,696

  1,688

  1,638

  1.714

  1,807

  1,849

  Camden

  1,383

  1,296

  1,167

  1,139

  1,252

  1,266

  1,218

  City of London

  44

  25

  38

  72

  59

  104

  128

  Croydon

  1,869

  1,969

  1,903

  2,011

  2,224

  2,200

  2,194

  Ealing

  1,823

  2,161

  2,130

  2,337

  2,378

  2,476

  2,600

  Enfield

  1,605

  1,805

  1,687

  1,780

  1,768

  1,884

  1,981

  Greenwich

  945

  1.019

  989

  1,021

  1,049

  1,233

  1,129

  Hackney

  867

  1,249

  1,174

  1,229

  1,246

  1,386

  1,374

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  870

  963

  849

  876

  886

  967

  970

  Haringey

  1,300

  1,565

  1,550

  1,535

  1,541

  1,546

  1,549

  Harrow

  1,709

  1,875

  1,841

  1,999

  2,025

  2,131

  2,173

  Havering

  747

  836

  796

  844

  859

  914

  832

  Hillingdon

  1,049

  1.192

  1,231

  1,219

  1,315

  1,389

  1,538

  Hounslow

  1,291

  1,415

  1,429

  1,424

  1,635

  1,560

  1,610

  Islington

  662

  976

  961

  973

  1,063

  1,053

  1,028

  Kensington and Chelsea

  922

  1,041

  925

  960

  958

  980

  983

  Kingston Upon Thames

  876

  938

  948

  945

  996

  1,113

  1,191

  Lambeth

  1,387

  1,577

  1,511

  1,591

  1,628

  1,794

  1,836

  Lewisham

  1,096

  1,370

  1,291

  1,295

  1,428

  1,511

  1,545

  Merton

  1.158

  1,144

  1,048

  1,157

  1,149

  1,201

  1,241

  Newham

  1,235

  1,625

  1,689

  1,948

  1,938

  2,191

  2,127

  Redbridge

  1,581

  1,708

  1,705

  1,731

  1,931

  2,061

  2,187

  Richmond Upon Thames

  1,035

  1,237

  1,306

  1,216

  1,170

  1,278

  1,207

  Southwark

  1,165

  1,375

  1,394

  1,501

  1,476

  1,607

  1,758

  Sutton

  855

  935

  914

  907

  957

  1,024

  1,096

  Tower Hamlets

  768

  810

  865

  949

  1,085

  1,158

  1,199

  Waltham Forest

  1,031

  1,322

  1,295

  1,322

  1,379

  1,473

  1,527

  Wandsworth

  988

  1,550

  1,484

  1,509

  1,474

  1,559

  1,544

  Westminster

  783

  1,110

  1,082

  1,029

  1.033

  1,082

  1,157

  Total Greater London1

  37,935

  44,103

  43,132

  44,521

  46,265

  48,754

  49,866

  1 Figures exclude those domiciles of unknown LEA.

  Source:

  UCAS

  Further Education
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students have applied to take(a) foundation degrees and (b) Higher National Diplomas in each of the past three years. [152648]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information covers those applying through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) to full-time foundation degrees and HMDs. Figures are given in the table. There is no central record of applicants to part-time courses.

  Number of applicants1 through UCAS to foundation degree and HND courses

  Year of entry

  Foundation degrees

  HMDs

  2001

  1,330

  52,584

  2002

  5,383

  45,417

  2003

  10,956

  38,046

  1Applicants applying to both foundation degree and HND courses will be counted in both columns.

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service

  636W
  Alan Johnson
  The available information is taken from the Universities and Colleges Admissions service (UCAS) and covers all applicants accepted through UCAS to full time first degree and HND courses. Figures are given in the table.

  Higher Education
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skill what assessment he has made of whether the proposed reforms to the funding of higher education will affect the choice of place of study of(a) students residing in England and (b) students residing in Wales (i) during the period of this term of the Welsh Assembly Government when an opt-out applies in Wales and (ii) in a future term of the Welsh Assembly Government should it adopt comparable higher education reforms in Wales. [165424]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and I are in regular contact with the National Assembly on these issues. Data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency shows that the percentage of Welsh-domiciled full-time undergraduate students studying in Wales rose from 57 per cent. in 1997–8 to 62 per cent. in 2002–03: the proportion of English-domiciled full-time undergraduates studying in Wales has remained at 3 per cent. over the same period. All the evidence we have on sensitivity of demand to
  637W
  raising and deferring a fee of up to £3,000 suggests the impact of higher fees on these trends is unlikely to be significant. If the Higher Education Bill currently before Parliament proceeds to Royal Assent, future decisions on tuition fees will be for the National Assembly. The Assembly has already committed to providing Welsh students who study in England with a package of financial support that is similar to that available to English students, including fee deferral and a grant worth up to £2,700 for low income students.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students from England attended higher education institutions in Scotland in each academic year since 2000–01. [164892]

  Alan Johnson
  Figures for the number of English domiciled, full time, undergraduates enrolled at Scottish HE institutions are given in the table.

  English domiciled full time undergraduates at Scottish HE institutions

  Academic Year

  Enrolments

  2000–01

  14,723

  2001–02

  14,841

  2002–03

  14,291

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency

  Table 3.8 Fundingl per Student2 in Higher Education, 1996–97 to 2005–06

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  actual

  actual

  actual

  actual

  actual

  provisional

  plans

  plans

  plans

  Funding per student' Real terms (£) Real terms index4

  5,050

  5,050

  5,040

  4,980

  5,020

  5,020

  5,150

  5,190

  5,340

  100

  100

  100

  99

  99

  99

  102

  103

  106

  1 Publicly planned funding on higher education institutions in England includes block grants from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Teacher Training Agency, and public and private contributions towards the costs of tuition.

  2 Full-time equivalent students

  3 The maximum student contribution to fees in 2002–3 is "£1,100. This forms part of the funding above and represents between 20 and 25 per cent. of the average costs of a course.

  4 Real terms index has been based with 1 197-98 set as 100 and using the April 2003 gross domestic product deflators.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the individual public sector budgets from which grants have been made to higher education institutions in the past two financial years. [166688]

  Alan Johnson
  In the last two years, higher education institutions in England have received public funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Teacher Training Agency; the Learning Skills Council; the Student Loans Company; local authorities; the Office of Science and Technology; the Research Councils; the Arts and Humanities Research Board; other Government departments, which commission research or buy services from HEIs, (including the Department of Health, Department for Education and Skills and the Ministry of Defence), and from the European Union, for example from European Social Funds.
  638W
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students from Scotland attended higher education institutions in England in each academic year since 2000–01. [164893]

  Alan Johnson
  Figures for the number of Scottish domiciled, full time, undergraduates enrolled at English HE institutions are given in the table.

  Scottish domiciled full time undergraduates at English HE institutions

  Academic year

  Enrolments

  2000–01

  5,802

  2001–02

  5,891

  2002–03

  5,950

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the level of public spending per student in higher education will be in the current financial year and each of the two subsequent financial years. [166687]

  Alan Johnson
  The table as follows, published in our 2003 Departmental Report, shows publicly planned funding per student to 2005–06. Spending on higher education in 2005–06 will be reconfirmed, and the budgets for 2006–07 and 2007–07 will be set, once the spending review settlement announced on 17 March has been allocated within the Department.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the attrition rates for medical school undergraduates were in each year of training since 1997. [162096]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on non-completion rates for higher education students broken down by subject is not held centrally. For full-time first degree students who began their studies in 2000/01, the overall non-completion rate for the UK was estimated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England to be 16 per cent., one of the lowest in the OECD.

  Part-time Undergraduates
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the age profile is of part-time undergraduate students in the UK. [152684]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is given in the table.
  639W

  Part time undergraduate enrolments11 at UK institutions 2002/03

  Age band

  Number

  Under 18 years

  2,285

  18 to 24 years

  73,926

  25 to 34 years

  138,599

  35 to 44 years

  141,947

  45 to 54 years

  77,916

  55 to 64 years

  33,839

  65 years and over

  21,446

  Unknown

  9,935

  Total

  499,893

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency(HESA).

  School Location
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils in Greater London live more than three miles from the school they attend, broken down by local education authority. [165838]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Numbers of pupils living more than three miles11 from the maintained primary and secondary schools2 that they attend— January 2003

  Primary

  Secondary

  Number of pupils

  Percentage of pupils

  Number of pupils

  Percentage of pupils

  Barking and Dagenham

  269

  1.4

  662

  5.7

  Barnet

  847

  3.3

  5,571

  26.4

  Bexley

  450

  2.1

  2,230

  12.6

  Brent

  1,034

  4.5

  2,291

  14.1

  Bromley

  748

  3.1

  4,113

  18.8

  Camden

  226

  2.0

  1,253

  13.0

  City of London

  30

  13.5

  n/a

  —

  City of Westminister

  487

  4.6

  1,841

  22.1

  Croydon

  844

  2.7

  2,889

  15.6

  Ealing

  459

  1.7

  1,550

  9.9

  Enfield

  725

  2.7

  2,982

  14.1

  Greenwich

  359

  1.7

  1,786

  12.2

  Hackney

  270

  1.5

  312

  3.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  218

  2.2

  1,940

  26.5

  Haringey

  364

  1.7

  671

  6.2

  Harrow

  576

  2.9

  889

  9.9

  Havering

  734

  3.6

  2,712

  16.6

  Hillingdon

  625

  2.5

  2,159

  12.4

  Hounslow

  450

  2.3

  2,774

  16.8

  Islington

  250

  1.7

  699

  9.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  292

  4.2

  736

  20.7

  Kingston upon Thames

  204

  1.7

  1,615

  17.8

  Lambeth

  460

  2.3

  1,224

  16.5

  Lewisham

  348

  1.5

  1,191

  10.2

  Merton

  229

  1.6

  1,264

  14.8

  Newham

  237

  0.8

  612

  3.4

  Redbridge

  580

  2.4

  2.194

  11.1

  Richmond upon Thames

  227

  1.8

  1,016

  13.7

  Southwark

  324

  1.4

  1,016

  9.4

  Sutton

  215

  1.4

  2.322

  15.1

  Tower Hamlets

  388

  1.8

  682

  4.7

  Waltham Forest

  346

  1.6

  582

  4.2

  Wandsworth

  562

  3.2

  1,568

  15.5

  Greater London total

  14,379

  2.3

  55,346

  13.2

  1 Distances calculated are straight line

  2 includes middle schools as deemed

  Source: Pupil Level Annual Schools' Census

  Speech Therapists
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many colleges in London offer speech therapy courses; and how many places are available on each course. [164162]
  640W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The latest available information from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) website (www.ucas.ac.uk). shows that two institutions in London, University College London and City University offer courses in Speech Therapy or Speech Science. The number of students on these courses is not held centrally.

  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many students started speech therapy courses at colleges in London in each year from 1997 to 2004; [164163]

  (2) how many students dropped out of speech therapy courses at London colleges in each year since 1997; [164172]

  (3) how many students (a) qualified as speech therapists from London colleges and (b) entered the profession in each year since 1997. [164173]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the number of students entering and qualifying from speech therapy courses is not held centrally. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HECFE) publish non-completion rates of students on all full-time undergraduate courses but these are not calculated for individual subjects or courses.

  Student Drop-out Rate
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the drop out rate was for each(a) higher education and (b) further education institution in the latest year for which figures are available. [157565]

  Alan Johnson
  For higher education institutions, the available information on non continuation rates is contained in "Performance Indicators in Higher Education", published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The figures cover full-time first degree courses only, and show, for each individual HE institution in the UK, the numbers and proportion of entrants who failed to complete their course. Copies of the HEFCE publication are available for students starting courses in 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000, and are available from the House Library; data for 2000–01 is available from the HEFCE website at http://www.hefce,ac,uk/learning/ perfind/2003/

  In Further Education, figures are routinely presented in terms of the percentage of learners who are retained. In-year retention rates for Further Education Institutions in England can be found in the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) publication "Summary Statistics for Further Education Institutions: England 2000/2001", available at http://www.lscdata.gov.uk/ summary statistics/. A printed version of the relevant table showing in-year retention rates for each institution, along with summary information will be placed in the Commons Library.
  641W

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many civil servants aro employed in each constituency listed in descending order. [166676]

  Mr. Alexander
  Data on numbers of Civil Servants employed in each constituency is not collected centrally. A breakdown of the number employed in each Government Office Region is published annually in the Civil Service Statistics. Copies of Civil Service Statistics are available in the Library and at www.civil-service. gov.uk/statistics.

  New Deal
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office How many New Deal 50 plus clients were employed in each of the last three years by(a) his Department and (b) all other central Government Departments. [167193]

  Mr. Alexander
  Data on the number of people starting employment under the New Deal 50 plus scheme has been collected on a quarterly basis by the Cabinet Office since July 2002. The available information is shown in the following table.

  Annual

  Number of New Deal 50 plus—Cabinet Office

  Number of New Deal 50 plus— central Government Departments1

  2 January 2003–1 January 2004

  0

  40

  2 July 2002–1 January 20032

  1

  8

  Number of people starting employment under the New Deal 50 plus scheme in all central Government Departments and agencies excluding Cabinet Office.

  Information is not available prior July 2002 when collection began.

  Source:

  Cabinet Office—New Deal Data Collection.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government Finance
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the 10(a) least and (b) most indebted local authorities are. [167063]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The 10 English local authorities that had the least net debt as at 31 March 2003 are:

  City of London

  Barking and Dagenham

  Basingstoke and Deane

  Bromley

  South Oxfordshire

  St. Edmundsbury

  Dorset

  642W

  Crawley

  East Hertfordshire

  Huntingdonshire

  (b) The 10 English local authorities that had the most net debt as at 31 March 2003 are:

  Newham

  Islington

  Southwark

  Kent

  Lambeth

  Liverpool

  Sheffield

  Leeds

  Birmingham

  Manchester.

  Source:

  ODPM monthly and quarterly borrowing returns.

  It should be noted that authorities with high levels of debt are generally those which have undertaken capital investment. Long-term borrowing to finance capital expenditure was regulated through the issue of credit approvals up until 31 March 2004 and, as from 1 April 2004, is subject to the Prudential System.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the Government intends to change the formula for distribution between authorities of housing revenue account and management and maintenance allowances; and what the sums involved are. [166891]

  Keith Hill
  Following wide consultation with local authorities and others last year, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced changes to the distribution of management and maintenance allowances within HRA subsidy to take effect from April 2004. Full details of each authority's allocation and the new methodology were published on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website on 18 December 2003, as part of the General Determination of Housing Revenue Account Subsidy for 2004–05. We are considering some minor, technical improvements to the new formulae for 2005–06 and will of course consult before introducing any further change.

  The changes are purely about distribution and have not made any difference to the total resources available for management and maintenance allowances. Transitional arrangements mean that all authorities will receive at least inflationary increases in their allowances in both 2004–05 and 2005–06, with most receiving more.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the latest allocation of Planning Delivery Grant to each local authority and region. [166899]

  Keith Hill
  The latest allocations of Planning Delivery Grant for 2004–05 has been made available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he intends to cap the council tax rise imposed by Herefordshire council; and if he will make a statement. [167293]

  Mr. Raynsford
  When the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced the council tax increases for 2004–05 on 25 March, we confirmed that we were ready
  643W
  to use our targeted capping powers if necessary and that we aimed to notify any authorities which might be in line for capping by the end of April. I cannot say in advance which authorities these may be.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to reply to the(a) letters from the Chairman of South Cambridgeshire District Council of 30 January and 2 April and the (b) letter from the hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire of 30 March, on the Smithy Fen travellers' site at Cottenham and requests for a meeting. [167174]

  Yvette Cooper
  I replied to these letters on 21 April 2004.

  Development Planning
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his latest timetable is for implementing(a) regional spatial strategies and (b) local development documents. [166943]

  Keith Hill
  On commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, the majority of existing Regional Planning Guidance documents will become Regional Spatial Strategies and should be implemented in accordance with the implementation proposals set out in those documents over the 15 to 20 year periods they relate to.

  Commencement of the Bill will also enable LPAs to prepare and adopt Local Development Documents in accordance with the programmes outlined in their Local Development Schemes. The Local Development Schemes will have to be in place by the end of this year and will set out a three-year programme for the preparation of Local Development Documents.

  Drugs Litter
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether powers exist to permit officers of a local authority to enter private property to retrieve drugs litter. [166793]

  Phil Hope
  Any tenant or owner-occupier has the right to enjoy their premises without disturbance. Local authority officers cannot enter private property without permission unless they have been given a specific power to do so. There are no specific powers that we are aware of, which relate to retrieval of drugs litter.

  Fire Safety/Construction Products
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he plans to consult(a) the Association of Fire Consultants, (b) the Passive Fire Protection Confederation and (c) the Active Fire Industry Confederation about European Commission proposals to amend the law on fire safety and construction products. [167223]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The European Commission has not yet published its proposals for amending the construction products directive. When it does, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will consult relevant UK 644W
  industry bodies in the usual way. We will ensure that the organisations referred to by the hon. Member are included in any such consultation.

  Mr. Lidington
  to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on European Commission proposals to make the use of a CE mark mandatory for construction products. [167224]

  Keith Hill
  The European Commission has not yet published any proposals concerning the mandatory or voluntary nature of CE marking. when they do, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will consult UK industry in the usual way before deciding on the Government's policy on this matter.

  Fires
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of fires caused by cigarettes in each of the last five years; and how many deaths there were in such fires. [166841]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is in the following table:

  Fires and fatal casualties in fires attended by United Kingdom Fire and Rescue Services that were started by cigarettes and other tobacco products, UK, 1998–2002

  Fires1

  Fatal casualties

  1998

  8,134

  160

  1999

  7,919

  130

  2000

  6,660

  143

  2001

  6,839

  146

  20022

  6,192

  123

  1Estimate based on sampled data.

  2 Excluding a period of 10 days of industrial action in November 2002

  Green Belt
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Government's strategy on building on the Green Belt is. [166945]

  Keith Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member on 15 December 2003 Official Report, Hansard (column 748W).

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what consultations he has had with landlords and landlords' representatives regarding the method by which licensing of houses of multiple occupation will be introduced. [166290]

  Keith Hill
  Landlords and their representatives were consulted on the draft Housing Bill and were subsequently invited to present evidence to the Select Committee that scrutinised the Bill. Ministers and officials have had a number of meetings with landlords' representatives on the licensing provisions in the Bill and how they might be implemented. The Government are committed to continue consultation with stakeholders, including landlords on the implementation of the licensing provisions.
  645W
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce a pilot scheme for licensing of houses of multiple occupation in England and Wales. [166291]

  Keith Hill
  The Government have no plans to introduce a pilot scheme for licensing of houses in multiple occupation in England and Wales.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what consultations he has had with land lords and landlords' representatives regarding the manner in which central Government will monitor licensing of houses of multiple occupation; and what the results were. [166292]

  Keith Hill
  The Government has not yet consulted landlords or their representatives, on the manner in which it will monitor licensing of houses in multiple occupation. It has undertaken to review licensing within three years of its implementation and it will consult stakeholders (including landlords' representatives) on the terms of reference for that review once plans have been worked up.

  Housing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of how the Starter Homes Initiative has affected the residents of Burnley. [168313]

  Keith Hill
  Between September 2001 and 31 March 2004, the Starter Home Initiative helped key workers into home ownership in areas where the high cost of housing was undermining recruitment and retention of skilled staff in our key public services. The programme was not available to key workers in Burnley.

  The new Key Worker Living programme which started on 1 April 2004 superseding the Starter Home Initiative is helping key workers in London, the South East and the Eastern regions.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homes have been made available within Liverpool, Walton under(a) the Starter Homes Initiative and (b) the Abandoned Homes Initiative. [166947]

  Keith Hill
  Between September 2001 and 31 March 2004, the Starter Home Initiative (SHI) helped key workers into home ownership in areas where the high cost of housing serves to undermine recruitment and retention of skilled staff in our key public services. The SHI was available in London and the South East region and in some housing hotspots in the East, South West and West Midlands regions. It was not available to key workers in the North West region.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not aware of an Abandoned Homes Initiative. However, our Market Renewal Pathfinders is a comprehensive programme to tackle low demand and abandonment in nine English areas, including Merseyside. The boundaries of the Merseyside scheme were drawn up following an analysis of local housing markets to identify those areas most acutely affected by low demand and abandonment. The integrated approach to spatial and economic issues being adopted by the pathfinders should bring substantial benefits to the wider sub-region.
  646W
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect of the Starter Homes Initiative on the residents of Manchester, Gorton. [167464]

  Keith Hill
  Between September 2001 and 31 March 2004, the Starter Home Initiative helped key workers into home ownership in areas where the high cost of housing was undermining recruitment and retention of skilled staff in our key public services. The programme was not available to key workers in Manchester.

  The new Key Worker Living programme which started on 1 April 2004 superseding the Starter Home Initiative is helping key workers in London, the South East and the Eastern regions.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what evaluation he has undertaken of the link between the current level of housing construction and the time it takes to obtain full planning permission. [166900]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recognises that good performance on planning including having up to date plans in place and an efficient and effective development control service are important to achieving agreed housing numbers although, as the Barker review concluded, they are not the only factors. That is why we are seeking to reform the planning system and increase its resourcing to drive improved performance in these areas.

  Housing Act 1986
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what measures are in place to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of the Housing Act 1986; and what their findings are; [166314]

  (2) what measures are in place to assess the impact of the Housing Act 1986 on the housing market; and what their findings are. [166315]

  Keith Hill
  The effectiveness and impact of the provisions within the Housing and Planning Act 1986 have been assessed as part of the development of different aspects of housing policy which led to the bringing forward of subsequent housing legislation. This has led to many of the provisions in the 1986 Act being amended or repealed by:

  the Housing Act 1988;

  the Local Government and Housing Act 1989;

  the Housing Act 1996;

  and other legislation on housing.

  Housing and Planning
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the names and functions are of the organisations and agencies within his Office that relate to housing and planning; what budget is allocated to each; how the efficiency of the different organisations and agencies within his Office that relate to housing and planning is evaluated; and what the efficiency rating is of each such organisation and agency; [166339]
  647W
  (2) what mergers of organisations and agencies there have been since 1997 within his Office that relate to housing and planning; what evaluation has been made of the effectiveness of such mergers; and what the results were; [166340]

  (3) how many staff were employed in 1997 in organisations and agencies relate to housing and planning; and how many staff are employed now in organisations and agencies within his Office that relate to housing and planning. [166341]

  Keith Hill
  An organisational chart showing the current structure and complements of the directorates dealing with housing, planning and related issues in the Sustainable Communities Delivery Unit within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been made available in the Library of the House.

  The allocation for the Housing Directorate's administration expenditure for 2001–05 is £7.216 million. The allocation for Planning is £6.774 million.

  There have been separate housing and planning directorates throughout the period since 1997, although the directorates work very closely together within the Sustainable Communities Delivery Unit.

  The efficiency of these directorates is measured by the progress made against the public service agreement targets for which they are chiefly responsible. This is reported in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's annual report.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established on 29 May 2002. Information prior to this date is not available. On 1 April 2004, there were 281.14 full time equivalent staff working in the housing and planning directorates.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many PFI projects have been undertaken within the remit of the housing and planning section of his Office since private finance initiative projects were introduced. [166342]

  Keith Hill
  Since the introduction of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) projects, the Office of the Deputy prime Minister has undertaken 28 Housing PFI projects of which nine are signed, and a further 19 are in procurement.

  Under the Planning section, the Office has not undertaken any PFI projects to date.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what functions the EU requires his Office to undertake with regard to housing and planning. [166343]

  Keith Hill
  Housing and planning are not areas for which the EU has competence. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Planning Directorate has policy responsibility for the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive.

  Housing Bill
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Government estimates the implementation of the 648W
  provisions of the Housing Bill will cost; and what funds the Government have committed to the implementation of the provisions of the Housing Bill. [166287]

  Keith Hill
  The Housing Bill was introduced in the House in December 2003. At that time, the Government made available the Regulatory Impact Assessments for each of the Parts of the Bill. These set out our initial estimates of the costs of implementing the Housing Bill provisions. These included start-up costs for the introduction of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System and licensing provisions. They also included start up costs and some additional enforcement costs for the introduction of home information packs.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently in discussion with the Local Government Association about these estimated costs. Final decisions on the commitment of funds are subject to the outcome of the Government's spending review.

  Local Development Frameworks
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made by local authorities in meeting their Public Service Agreement 6 Target to complete all their Local Development Frameworks by 2006; how many authorities he expects to meet the target and how many he expects will not; and what plans he has to use his powers to intervene directly to enable local authorities to meet this target. [166887]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Me Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects the t all local planning authorities will meet the target by having up to date planning policies consisting of policies in saved development plans and new policies in Local Development Documents. At present, there are n o plans to intervene directly with local authorities, but we will keep this under review in the light of the authorities' first Local Development Schemes.

  Local Government Finance (Liverpool)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much grant has been paid to Liverpool City Council each year since 1997 [166946]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Total grant paid to Liverpool City Council since 1997 I, tabled as follows:

  Total Grant

  £ million

  1997–98

  384.4

  1998–99

  411.7

  1999–2000

  431.4

  2000–01

  469.4

  2001–02

  514.4

  2002–03

  558.7

  2003–042

  583.7

  1 Includes Revenue Support Grant, Redistributed Non-Domestic Rates and Specificand Special Grants inside AEF.

  2 Budgeted figures

  Source:

  1997–98 to 2002–03 Revenue Summary Returns and 2003–04 Budget Estimate Return.

  Management and Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average management and maintenance allowance per dwelling in England was for each year from 1990–91; and what the planned figure is for 2005–06. [166587]

  Keith Hill
  The following tablo shows the average management and maintenance allowances per dwelling in England from 1990–91 to 2004–05. Allowances for 2005–06 will not be announced until December 2004. However they are expected to increase by around 10.5 per cent.

  Average management and maintenance allowances per dwelling in England

  £

  1990–91

  742.57

  1991–92

  772.85

  1992–93

  837.60

  1993–94

  874.86

  1994–95

  906.83

  1995–96

  945.09

  1996–97

  959.99

  1997–98

  960.52

  1998–99

  960.03

  1999–00

  977.84

  2000–01

  1,006.45

  2001–02

  1,035.65

  2002–03

  1,112.70

  2003041

  1,188.33

  1Based on advanced claims for HRA subsidy. Other years from final audited claims.

  Oxfordshire (Barker Report)
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the implications of the Barker Report for Oxfordshire. [166762]

  Keith Hill
  It is too early to take; any view about the implications of the Barker report for any particular area. Kate Barker's report sets out a challenging agenda for change which will help to carry forward the objectives of our Communities Plan. The Government agrees that, in order to deliver long term stability in housing markets where demand is highest, a substantial increase in housing supply is needed.

  This needs to be delivered as pat t of a package which includes planning reform, a more responsive house building industry and more investment in affordable housing and infrastructure. At the same time, the economic case for increased development needs to be balanced against its social and environmental implications.

  The Barker report looked at the national picture. Any plans to implement its recommendations will also have to take account of the widely differing housing market conditions across the country and our consideration will include the regional and sub-regional dimension. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to establish a long term market affordability goal, linked to housing supply, and consult on its implications at national and regional level within the next 18 months.

  Planning Officers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many qualified planning officers are 650W
  employed by local government in England; and how many will be required to implement the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. [166897]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost—However, it is believed that just over 6,100 chartered Town Planners are in post. It is for individual local authorities to determine how many qualified planners they require to fulfil their functions, but the Government have provided Planning Delivery Grant worth £350 million during 2003–06 to help implement planning reforms and improve performance.

  Regional Assemblies
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he proposes that the proposed temporary borrowing powers for cash management purposes for possible regional assemblies will be guaranteed by central Government. [167341]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister proposes to give elected regional assemblies temporary borrowing powers for cash management purposes. It would be unnecessary for central Government to guarantee such borrowing.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for the years 1997 and 2003(a) how many houses were sold under (i) the right-to-buy scheme and (ii) the right-to-acquire scheme, (b) how many council houses were built and (c) how many registered social landlord houses were built. [166898]

  Keith Hill
  The figures are available for financial years 1996–97 and 2002–03 and are tabled as follows:

  1996–97

  2002–03

  Right-to-buy sales—LA tenants

  33,206

  63,394

  Right-to-buy sales—RSL tenants

  2,300

  10,473

  Right-to-acquire sales

  0

  228

  RSL new build completions

  24,630

  13,330

  Council new build completions

  451

  271

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is regarding the percentage of social housing that should be built on land released for residential use by the Ministry of Defence and the additional infrastructure that will be required; and what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on this subject. [166915]

  Keith Hill
  Government policy on the proportion of affordable housing to be provided in new developments is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: "Housing" (2000). This states that local planning authorities should identify suitable areas and sites on which affordable housing is to be provided and the amount of provision which will be sought. Additional infrastructure required by new developments varies from site to site and is a matter for agreement between the parties. Former Ministry of Defence sites are treated in the same way by the planning system as any other development site.
  651W
  There is regular contact between Ministry of Defence and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, including at ministerial level. English Partnerships has been given the role under the Sustainable Communities Plan (February 2003) to find and assemble land, especially brownfield and publicly owned land, for sustainable development.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to amend planning guidance in relation to telecommunications masts. [166941]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to amend planning guidance in relation to telecommunications developments at present.

  Travellers
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice he has received on the impact on appeals by travellers against planning enforcement where it can be proven that the appellants own property elsewhere in the EU. [167175]

  Yvette Cooper
  Decisions on planning applications and appeals, including enforcement appeals, are based on the land-use merits of each proposal. Under our `plan-led' system of development control, applications and appeals—including enforcement appeals—have to be decided on their individual merits in accordance with the local planning authority's development plan for the area with reference to other material considerations.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effects of the Human Rights Act 1998 on planning decisions relating to travellers' sites. [167176]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made no overall assessment of the effects of the Human Rights Act 1998 on planning decisions, whether they relate to traveller sites or other types of development.

TREASURY

  Special Purpose Vehicles
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many special purpose vehicles have been set up since October 2002. [166213]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on signed private finance initiative projects is submitted to the Treasury by Departments. This information, which includes the capital value and nature of each project, is available from the HM Treasury website: http://www.hmtreasury.gov.ukidocuments/public_private_partnerships/ ppp_pfi_stats.cfm

  Child Tax Credit (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Manchester, Gorton have received child tax credit. [167473]
  652W
  Dawn Primarolo
  l refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on 15 March 2004,Official Report, column 98W.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the impact on revenue of the European Court of Justice ruling concerning corporation tax for(a) 2004–05, (b) 2005–06, (c) 2006–07 and (d)M 2007–08. [166661]

  Dawn Primarolo
  If refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 163W.

  To date, a total of £212 million has now been paid as a consequence of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Hoechst case. Around £110 million of this may be recoverable depending on the outcome of a related court case. Current claims in which repayments have not yet been made are estimated to be in the region of £220 million, of which around £150 million depends on the court case. Any further repayments are subject to the other court decisions and a reliable estimate of the tax potentially repayable is not possible at the present time. But because ACT was abolished in 1999 these cases will not reduce corporation tax receipts for future years.

  The Government will also continue the wider-ranging dialogue on international issues that was begun during the August 2003 consultation, with a view to maintaining the competitiveness and fairness of the UK corporation tax regime and ensuring that it remains robust.

  Tax Credits (Overpayments)
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account is taken of claimants' weekly entitlement before tax credit overpayments are recovered. [165411]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Tax credits awards are based on annual entitlement. The Inland Revenue's Code of Practice 26, "What happens if we have paid you too much tax credit?", sets out the rules that the Inland Revenue follows when adjusting an award to recover an overpayment.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what limits there are on the recovery of overpayments for tax credits. [165415]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on 3 February 2004,Official Report, column 828W.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what powers exist to retrieve child maintenance from British citizens who leave the country and go to live in another EU member state. [166727]
  653W
  Mr. Lammy
  A number of international conventions and agreements exist that either provide for an existing maintenance order to be registered and enforced in the country which a parent has moved, or for an order for child support to be made and enforced in that country. These are the United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance 20 June 1956, the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations 2 October 1973, the Brussels &s Lugano Conventions 1968 and 1988 (now Council Regulation (EC) 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000—Service of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters) and the Republic of Ireland Agreement. These reciprocal arrangements apply where the EU country and the United Kingdom are signatories to the treaties. The primary legislation governing these international arrangements are the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 Parts 1 & II, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (Hague Convention Countries) Order 1993, the Civil jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982 and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (Republic of Ireland) Order 1993.

  Debt Recovery
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs in how many county court judgments enforcement agents have been used to recover debts where the ium of money to be recovered is(a) £125 or less and (b) more than £125 in each year since 1997. [166806]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department is responsible for county court bailiffs only.

  Statistical data by value of the debt enforcement process that county court bailiffs have dealt with, is not collected. The number of county court warrants of execution issued since 1997 is as follows:

  Number

  1998

  543,848

  1999

  538,337

  2000

  470,270

  2001

  394,611

  2002

  372,505

  2003

  355,476

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the proceeds of sales of goods by enforcement agents employed by the county courts was for the payment of(a) council tax and (b) all other debts in each year since 1997. [166807]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department is responsible for county court bailiffs only. Unpaid council tax is not recoverable through the county courts. It is pursued through the magistrates courts. Certificated Bailiffs are authorised under the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 to enforce nonpayment of council tax on instruct ion from the relevant magistrates court.

  In the county court the most common method of enforcement, where payment of the court order is in arrears, is a warrant of execution. County court bailiffs
  654W
  may remove a debtor's goods for sale to satisfy the amount of the warrant, if payment otherwise is not forthcoming.

  Statistical data is not collected to show the amount recovered from the proceeds of sale of goods for debt.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs in how many county court judgments letters were prepared and sent advising clients that a warrant for the recovery of a debt was with a court-employed enforcement agent in each year since 1997. [166811]

  Mr. Leslie
  If the defendant in a debt case defaults under the terms of the court order, it will be for the creditor to instruct the court to enforce the judgment. The most common form of enforcement for debt is a warrant of execution.

  As soon as the bailiff receives the warrant the defendant will be notified, in writing, that enforcement action has been instigated. The notice tells the defendant, among other things, when the amount of money should be paid to prevent any further action by the bailiff.

  The number of warrants of execution issued since 1997 is as follows:

  Number

  1998

  543,848

  1999

  538,337

  2000

  470,270

  2001

  394,611

  2002

  372,505

  2003

  355,476

  Land Registry
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what proportion of all house sales in England the Land Registry completes electronically; and what the target date is for 100 per cent. electronic conveyancing. [166889]

  Mr. Lammy
  Land Registry completes the registration of all house sales in England and Wales electronically. In addition, just over 50 per cent. of pre-contract I inquiries (mainly official copies of the register and official searches) received by the Registry are processed electronically.

  Land Registry continues to extend its range of electronic services and is introducing progressively its electronic conveyancing programme. It aims to launch a pilot of a re-engineered conveyancing system in 2006. In consultation with stakeholders and other interested parties, the programme will be refined and developed and it is expected that by 2010 a large majority of house sales in England and Wales will be conducted electronically.

  Legal Aid (NHS Cases)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what assessment his Department has made of the
  655W
  adequacy of current legal aid arrangements for (a) patients and (b) patients' families in dispute with NHS trusts; [166690]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the case for extending the provision of free legal advice for (a) patients and (b) patients' families involved in formal complaints against NHS trusts. [166691]

  Mr. Lammy
  Legal aid is available for clinical negligence claims, provided that the means and merits tests are passed. We are currently reviewing the present arrangements, and we will be making an announcement on the way forward shortly.

  NHS Negligence Claims
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the likely levels of compensation for deaths where the deceased has no dependants or access to conditional fee agreements by families pursuing negligence claims against NHS trusts. [166694]

  Mr. Lammy
  Where a person dies as a result of another' s negligence the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 primarily provides for compensation for the pecuniary losses of persons who were dependent on the deceased. The Act also enables the recovery of two other heads of damages, namely bereavement damages and reasonable funeral expenses. Bereavement damages are currently set at £10,000, and are available to the deceased's spouse, or if the deceased was under 18 and had never been married, to his or her parents. Access to a conditional fee agreement would have no bearing on the level of compensation awarded.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hamas
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the activities of Hamas in the United Kingdom. [164889]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 29 March 2004]: I have been asked to reply.

  The military wing of Hamas, Hamas-lzz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades (HIDQ) was proscribed in 2001 under the terms of the Terrorism Act 2000. However, Hamas also engages in social activities, providing welfare, medical and educational services in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. The group is not formally represented in the United Kingdom, but supporters are involved in fundraising and political activity on its behalf. Any allegations of illegal activity are and will be investigated by the appropriate authorities.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date the High Commission in Islamabad and UK Visas sent to the Home Office all papers relating to the appeal of Mr. S. M., husband of Mrs. S. K. of Aylesbury(decision 656W
  maker's reference 643686; Gerrys/Fedex case number 90083389; appeal reference 90063159: GV100/86120); and if he will make a statement. [167246]

  Mr. Mullin
  On 5 April UK visas replied to the hon. Member's letter of 19 February advising when the appeal papers for this case were sent to the Home Office. However, I will shortly write to the hon. Member to advise further.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Nigerian Government regarding the violence against Christians in the state of Plateau. [166918]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are concerned about the violence which has affected all communities in Plateau State. We remain in close touch with the Nigerian authorities. Officials from the British High Commission in Abuja recently visited Plateau State and met Christian and Muslim leaders and victims. We have emphasised to the parties and the State Government our conviction that dialogue between Christians and Muslims is the best way to create understanding and mutual tolerance. Coventry Cathedral's center for Peace and Reconciliation is active in Plateau State. We support and have helped fund their work.

  Sudan
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts regarding the EU-led peacekeeping force for Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [167183]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UN Department for Peacekeeping Operations is planning for a UN peace support operation once a comprehensive peace agreement is in place in Sudan. We are in close contact with the UN on this matter. There are no plans for this peace support operation to be EU-led.

NORTHERN HERN IRELAND

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if lie will make a statement on how he plans to implement his policy of using public expenditure to reduce the costs of electricity to business. [166016]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Thy; proposed intervention is part of the continuing drive by Government to reduce the higher electricity costs paid by Northern Ireland businesses in order to improve their competitiveness. The objective is to bring about an average reduction in electricity prices across the business sector of 10 per cent. below the levels they would otherwise have been.

  The proposal is designed to address an element of the legacy costs which followed the 1992 privatisation of the Northern Ireland electricity supply industry. In particular, the intention is to remove the ongoing financial obligation on Northern Ireland Electricity plc (NIE) arising from the restructuring of the original

  657W
  Ballylumford power station generation contract. The cost of meeting this obligation is currently passed on to the electricity consumers as a Public Service Obligation (PSO) charge.

  Subject to the necessary State aid clearance, the proposed Government intervention would be provided to NIE to offset the equivalent cost to the company of meeting this obligation. The full benefit of the intervention would, in turn, be passed on by suppliers to business customers through a reduction in their electricity bills.

  Gas Prices
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will meet with the Centrica Company to discuss the effects that the proposed rise in retail gas prices will have on. Northern Ireland's consumers; and if he will make a statement. [165165]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Following my meeting with Phoenix Natural Gas on 8 April 2004, the company agreed to suspend its proposed gas price increase. I also met with Centrica on 19 April 2004 when I emphasised the importance of the natural gas industry to Northern Ireland and asked that all parties work together to resolve the various issues and thus secure the long-term future of the industry.

  Gas Supply Industry
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to ensure that a long-term agreement is reached between the Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation and the Phoenix gas company to ensure long-term stability in the gas market; and if he will make a statement. [165946]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Phoenix Natural Gas and the Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation have been engaged in lengthy and detailed discussions about possible licence amendments aimed at achieving longterm stability in charges and rates of return on assets. While my Department has no formal role in this process, I have made clear to both parties Me importance which I attach to an early resolution of these negotiations in the interests of consumers and the future of the NI gas industry.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce competition into the natural gas industry in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a state merit. [165947]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Under the terms of the regulated Phoenix Natural Gas licence, industrial and commercial gas consumers taking more than 75,000 therms a year already have the opportunity to seek alternative sources of supply. Such open competition arrangements will apply to all other consumers from 1 January 2005.

  Listed Buildings
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether ecclesiastical exemption applies to listed buildings in Northern Ireland. [168011]
  658W
  Angela Smith
  Yes, an ecclesiastical building is exempt from the controls over the demolition, alteration or extension of listed buildings, unless it is used or available for use by a minister of religion wholly or mainly as a residence from which to perform the duties of his office.

DEFENCE

  Aerospace Employment
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to sustain employment in BAE Air Systems divisions. [167316]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence currently has two major programmes with BAE Systems Air Systems, for Typhoon and the Nimrod MRA4, which are supporting many thousands of jobs. Other jobs in the company are likely to be sustained by work for the Department on the Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer and the Joint Strike Fighter.

  Boscombe Down
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Boscombe Down; and what the cost of the establishment has been in each year since 1997. [162147]

  Mr. Ingram
  Boscombe Down is included in the Long Term Partnering Agreement that has been negotiated with QinetiQ for the delivery of a long-term test and evaluation capability to the Ministry of Defence. The financial information requested is commercially sensitive and I am therefore withholding this under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Bradford University School of Peace Studies
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether other universities were invited to tender for the contract awarded to the Bradford University School of Peace Studies by the Ministry of Defence; [167314]

  (2) if he will place in the Library the draft syllabus presented by the Bradford University School of Peace Studies to the Ministry of Defence before the training contract was signed; [167313]

  (3) what inquiries were made into the practical military and peacekeeping experience of Bradford University School of Peace Studies staff before the awarding of a Ministry of Defence contract; and what the results were; [167312]

  (4) what reason Bradford University's School of Peace Studies has been selected to teach UK soldiers about conflict resolution; whether this decision was taken at ministerial level; and what the overall cost will be. [167311]

  Mr. Ingram
  Bradford University is one of nine Universities recently awarded contracts to deliver the Armed Forces' University Short Course Programme to Service personnel. Contract advertisements were placed in major bulletins, such as the Ministry of Defence's
  659W
  Contracts Bulletin and other appropriate media, and fourteen Universities tendered for elements of the programme, which delivers a range of 44 different courses.

  Bradford University's Department of Peace Studies successfully tendered for four courses from the programme. All bids for courses were subjected to detailed technical evaluation against key criteria, including the academic experience of the relevant institution. Contracts were awarded on the basis of fair and open competition to the best overall bidder.

  The contract award did not require a ministerial decision since these are replacement contracts for existing arrangements. The decision was taken by the three Service sponsors, Training Group Defence Agency for the RAF, Army Training and Recruitment Agency and Naval Recruitment and Training Agency.

  The overall cost of the Conflict Resolution course will depend on the actual uptake of the course across the five year period, but will not exceed £125K.

  The MOD's prospectus for the University Short Course Programme 2004–05 is currently being prepared and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House once it has been published. This is likely to be in the Summer.

  Civilian Deaths
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Government will pay compensation to the dependants of civilians killed by UK military action in(a) Afghanistan and (b) Iraq. [143596]

  Mr. Ingram
  In Iraq, payments are made in accordance with Section 6 of Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 17. This requires claims to be dealt with by the Parent State of the person whose activities are alleged to have caused the loss, in accordance with the national laws of that Parent State. Hence, each claim is treated on its merit according to English Law.

  In Afghanistan, no formal compensation payments have been made.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to reply in full to the letters of 10 March and 6 April of the hon. Member for Woking concerning Warrant Officer 2 Grieves reference D/US of S/IC 0928/04/L. [167170]

  Mr. Caplin
  I replied to the hon. Gentleman on 20 April.

  Defence Medical center (Birmingham)
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total planned cost of the Defence Medical center at Birmingham is; and what savings have been identified from its establishment. [166110]

  Mr. Caplin
  We are currently exploring, in consultation with industry, a number of options for the development of domestic accommodation and the move of all remaining medical training and other functions to 660W
  Birmingham. Planned costs and potential savings remain subject to evaluation of, and final decisions on, the various options.

  Equipment Purchases
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of table 2 from the National Audit Office report Operation Telic—United Kingdom Operations in Iraq, annotated to show the management group by which the equipment was acquired. [161119]

  Mr. Hoon
  A cop, of table 2 from the National Audit Office report Operation Telic—United Kingdom Operations in Iraq. annotated with the relevant Integrated Project Teams, has been placed in the Library today.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of hip Department's management groups purchased equipment under the urgent operational requirements procedure in financial year 2002–03; and what the value was of(a) that equipment and (b) equipment subsequently disposed of. [161120]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Integrated Project Teams that procured equipment under urg ent operational requirement (UOR) arrangements in financial year 2002–03 are shown in the following list. The costs of UORs in 2002–03 totalled some £290 million (of which the capital investment element amounted to around £220 million). Decisions on which UORs will be retained in service are being taken as part of this year's, and subsequent, planning rounds. Data on the value of disposals does not distinguish between equipment purchased routinely and equipment purchased under UOR arrangements.

  Integrated Project Teams that procured UOR equipment in Financial Year 2002–03:

  Air Launched Munitions

  Airfield Operations Systems

  Air Support

  Avionics

  Above Water Warfare Systems

  Battlefield Infrastructure

  C-17 Aircraft

  Close Armour

  Communication and Support Measures

  Chinook

  Communications Messaging

  Combat Supply Equipment

  Command Support Information Systems

  Command Support Vehicles (Heavy)

  Command Support Vehicles (Light)

  Defence Clothing

  Dismounted Close Combat

  Defence Fixed Networks

  Defence General Munitions

  Defence Information structures

  Engineer System Support

  Engineer Vehicles and Plants

  Field Artillery System Support

  Future Artillery Weapon Systems

  Gazelle Helicopter

  661W

  Harrier

  Helicopter Engines

  Hercules

  Information and Communication Systems Support

  Infra-Red Countermeasures

  Logistic Applications

  Land Electronic Warfare

  Light Armoured Support Systems

  Landing Platform Dock

  Lynx

  Military Airborne Communications and Homing System

  Mine Countermeasures Equipment

  Mine Countermeasures Vessels

  Marine Electrical Systems

  Mobility

  Medical Supply Agency

  Nuclear Biological Chemical

  Naval Electronic Warfare

  Nimrod

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary support

  Sensor Avionics and Navigation Systems

  SATCOM Acquisition Team

  Sea King Helicopter

  Sentry

  Successor Identification Friend or Foe

  Strategic Terrestrial Radio Systems

  Tactical Data Links

  Theatre and Formation Communication Systems

  Tank Systems Support

  Tornado

  Technical Services

  Tactical Unmanned Air Vehicles

  Workshop Support Services

  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to conclude his discussions with BAE Systems about the price and quantity of Eurofighter Typhoons that will form Tranche II of the Project. [167315]

  Mr. Ingram
  Discussions with BAE Systems regarding the order for Tranche II Typhoons are ongoing. The quantity that will form Tranche II of the project remains 236, of which 89 will be for the Royal Air Force; this is not under discussion.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what issues prevent him from ordering Tranche II of the Eurofighter Typhoon Contract. [167317]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 February 2004, (Official Report, column 1634W), to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). The negotiations are still ongoing and must be concluded before Tranche II can be ordered.

  Ferries
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many roll-on roll-off ferries his Department has commissioned since 1997; and how many are in service. [166855]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 April 2004]: The Ministry of Defence has commissioned six Roll-On/ Roll-Off vessels since 1997 and all these vessels are currently in service.

  Harrier GR7
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how much longer he expects to retain the Harrier GR7 in service. [167181]

  Mr. Ingram
  The GR7 Harrier is being upgraded to GR9 standard over the next five years. Current assumptions are that the Harrier GR9 will remain in operational service with the Royal Air Force until the middle of the next decade.

  Jaguar
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the RAF Jaguar Aircraft. [167184]

  Mr. Ingram
  Based on current plans the Jaguar fleet will be withdrawn from Royal Air Force service by 2009.

  Land Releases (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's current programme for land releases in Hampshire. [166916]

  Mr. Caplin
  Sites currently scheduled for release in Hampshire include:

  DM Dean Hill Main Site and adjacent land

  Site A Monxton Road, Andover

  Daedalus Conservation Area in Broom Way

  Property at frontage of DM Gosport in Fareham Road

  Aldershot—Burger King Site

  Aldershot—Ski slope site

  Farnborough—Queensgate site

  Farnborough—Former Officers Mess

  Farnborough—Civil enclave

  Farnborough—Garages at Lancaster Way

  Farnborough—Woodland at Norris Bridge

  Farham—Woodland at Old Park Lane

  In addition, as I announced on 23 March 2004, the Ministry of Defence is undertaking further work to examine where estate rationalisation might be possible, with the aim of consolidating defence activity at a smaller number of more densely utilised locations in order to achieve the optimum use of land and facilities. This on-going work covers the whole of our estate in Great Britain, and takes into account existing relocation studies that have already been announced.
  663W
  The Department is currently at an early stage of this wider review and each proposal that emerges from this work will be subject to full consultation in the normal way. No decisions have yet been reached on any further sites in Hampshire.

  Qinetiq
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions were included in the transfer of Defence Evaluation and Research Agency assets to QinetiQ for clawback in respect of development land sales; and what sums are expected to be clawed back in respect of the sale by QinetiQ of the former MoD Longcross site at Chertsey. [165869]

  Mr. Caplin
  All of the freehold sites transferred to QinetiQ at Vesting of the Company were subject to a clawback agreement.

  The total receipts from the disposal of the Chertsey site, of which the Longcross test track site forms a part, are unlikely to be fully realised for several years and it is therefore difficult to anticipate what sums, if any, will accrue to MOD from the clawback provisions.

  Approximately the first £50 million of receipts from this site secures a loan made by MOD to QinetiQ, and this sum will therefore be paid back to MOD as QinetiQ receives the sums from the purchaser.

  RAF Bases
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of(a) RAF Coltishall and (b) RAF Wittering. [167182]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans the Royal Air Force will have no continuing requirement for RAF Coltishall once the Jaguar aircraft goes out of service.

  RAF Wittering is one of the stations under consideration as part of the review into the future basing of Air Combat Service Support Units and minor units. I will be making a written statement on this review shortly.

  Suez Medal
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long on average it has taken from a claim to an award of the Canal Zone Medal. [165484]

  Mr. Caplin
  It is not possible to calculate the average time taken from a claim to an award of a Canal Zone Medal. However, as at 16 April the four single Service medal offices had received 37,512 applications. Many arrived following the Prime Minister's announcement on 11 June 2003 that a medal would be instituted and a large backlog had built up by 23 October 2003 when I announced that medals would now be available. 6,700 medals and/or clasps have been despatched to veterans or their families. The medal offices are currently assessing applications received on the following dates.

  Service Medal Office

  Applications received

  Royal Navy

  8 July 2003

  Royal Marines

  6 February 2004

  Army

  31 August 2003

  RAF

  4 November 2003

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many objections were made by his Department against pre-applications to build onshore wind farms in each of the last five years; and how many pre-applications for onshore wind farms were made in each of these years. [159735]

  Mr. Caplin
  In the period 1999 to 2003 the Ministry of Defence objected to a total of 796 pre-planning applications for onshore wind power projects.

  Proposals

  Objections

  19991

  65

  39

  20001

  158

  51

  2001

  333

  141

  2000

  985

  398

  2001

  685

  2167

  1There was no formal wind farm safeguarding team within the Department prior to August 2000, and statistics for 1999 and part of 2000 are, therefore, b iced on the best data currently available.

  2260 awaiting resolution.

  Many pre-applications are made by developers purely speculatively, and there is no data currently available to show how many pre-applications to which the Department does not state an objection are actually followed through. A here the Department does raise an objection MOD officials are always willing to work with the developer in order to determine whether a mutually acceptable solution can be found to enable a development to go ahead.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Disabled Workers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the measures introduced to improve the working conditions of disabled worker. in Crosby over the last seven years. [160526]

  Maria Eagle
  We have a number of measures in place nationally to help improve conditions for disabled people at work, as well as measures to improve their access to services generally. None of these are specific to Crosby, but all are available to disabled people who live and work there.

  From 1996, the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act required most employers of 20 or more staff not to discriminate against, and to make reasonable adjustments for, disabled job applicants or employ;,es; in December 1998, we reduced this threshold to 15 employees. From October this year, the small employer exemption will be removed and most currently excluded occupations, such as police officers, fire-fighters, and partners in business partnerships will be brought within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act employment provisions.

  Jobcenter Plus runs a number of specialist programmes providing help for disabled people, including New Deal for Disabled People, Workstep, Access to Work, th Job Introduction Scheme, and Work Preparation. All these programmes provide

  665W
  practical advice and support to disabled people and their employers to help overcome work related obstacles resulting from disability. Since 1997–98 there have been year on year increases in both numbers helped and programme spend.

  To help people access appropriate help, Jobcenter Plus has established a network of Disability Service Teams. The teams are made up of Disability Employment Advisors, Access to Work Advisers and Occupational Psychologists; their services are accessed through local Jobcenters.

  Since April 2003, disabled people in work have been receiving financial support through the Working Tax Credit. This is available if a person is working an average of at least 16 hours per week (self-employed or for an employer); and have a disability which puts them at a disadvantage in getting a job. 70,000 families

  Current D W P Modernisation Projects employing External Consultants

  Project name

  Brief description of the project

  Child Support Reform

  This project will implement the Child Support Reforms, involving the transformation of the existing CSA business processes and structures, through the introduction of a new IT system that supports new rules, legislation and operating model.

  Customer Management System

  This system is an information gathering business process for working age IS/JSA/IB benefit claims. It will allow information supplied by the customer to be gathered electronically by staff, improving efficiency and customer service. Staff will be able to check information supplied against that already held. The system will also support the arrangement of work-focused interviews.

  Debt Management

  The Debt Programme introduces a new organisational structure based on 10 Debt centers and a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) package to provide new Management Information systems, combined with increased focus on the management and ultimately reduction of debt stock.

  Digital Office Infrastructure (formally Early Office Infrastructure)

  DOI aims to implement a modern IT infrastructure platform across the Department allowing access to the intranet and intranet and modern business software.

  New Tax Credits

  This project supports the implementation of new tax credits by Inland Revenue by putting a tax credits service in place for DWP customers (principally through Jobcenter Plus) and ensuring that necessary amendments are made to DWP benefits.

  Payment Modernisation Programme

  The Payment Modernisation Programme aims to establish direct payment into a bank, building society or post office card account as the normal, convenient method of payment for all customers. This includes those who wish to collect their money from the Post Office. (The national banking infrastructure was successfully implemented in April 2003 through the Universal Bank project).

  Pension Credit

  This project successfully introduced pension credit in October 2003 and aims to increase the take-up of pension credit. It will deliver new IT functionality to existing DWP systems, and associated business products (e.g. training, staff guidance, customer notifications).

  Pensions Transformation Programme

  This Programme will transform the Pension Service bringing together business and IT change in ways that improve customer and staff satisfaction and deliver efficiencies.

  Resource Management System

  This programme will provide modernised HR, financial and procurement functions for DWP staff. These systems will introduce significant business process change, enabling Departmental resources to be managed more effectively.

  Pensions Forecasting

  We have introduced a modernised IT system to support the growing numbers of combined forecasts we are producing.

  ISCS/JSAPS Modernisation

  The key objectives are to improve interfaces with other DWP systems to reduce fraud and error; reduce costly clerical interventions by improving work management systems; improve customer service by enabling staff to view on-line system generated letters; provide a modern user interface for ISCS and JSAPS.

  `Focus' Human Resources Modernisation Programme

  The Human Resources Modernisation Programme includes:

  HR Service center Modernisation to restructure the existing HR Service centers and consolidating Jobcenter Plus HR administration;

  design and delivery of a range of technologies required for the modernisation of learning and development over three-year period;

  a strategy to ensure delivery of effective leadership development and education to senior managers and those identified as potential leaders;

  review of the current payroll system to ensure it is capable of delivering changes to the DWP reward strategy.

  666W
  (including over 32,000 adults without children) are benefiting from the disability element within the Working Tax Credit, compared to 38,000 who benefited from the old Disabled Person's Tax Credit.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a list of the projects on which his Department employed external consultants in each of the last six years. [152844]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested for each of the last six years for all projects is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The following table provides a list of current modernisation projects that have employed external consultants. It should be noted that project details may alter as they pass through the project lifecycle.
  667W

  Current DWP Modernisation Projects employing External Consultants

  Project name

  Brief description of the project

  Customer Information System

  The Project will deliver a database of key customer information to be shared across DWP. The database will complement information currently available in the Department's key customer information systems, i.e. Personal Details Computer System and Departmental Central Index, and become their replacement. The Project will use cost-eflective modern technology with minimum impact on the existing systems.

  Managing Core Systems Estate

  The objective of this project is to undertake, and where appropriate plan the activities necessary to maximise the effectiveness of the legacy systems in future.

  Working Age IS/IT Strategy Programme (formally IT Development Programme)

  This programme made up of a series of individual protects, three of which are:

  Better Off Calculator—This project will support the Government's focus on getting people back into work by illustrating how they would be better off working. It will be available to Jobcenter Plus staff, other DWP users and to citizens as a self-service package.

  Assessment Engine—The Assessment Engine will automate (as fully as possible) the assessment of income support and other benefits.

  Entitlement Management—This will increase the level of automation of the entitlement management processes reducing or eliminating the need for clerical intervention.

  Disability and Carers Service Change Programme

  This is an over-arching change programme that brings together a range of infrastructure projects, covering process, IT and telephony changes, into a single coherent programme. The programme will design and deliver changes to business, processes and Information Technology (IT) and support ongoing changes to the business organisation and telephony to reflect the emerging DCS Business Model.

  Note:

  This list is based on the best possible match between information from our systems to monitor DWP Modernisation projects and separate systems to monitor all use of consultancy across DWP. The list is not complete because a list of all projects is not available and differences in recording the names of projects in the different systems makes matching between them difficult.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many(a) men and (b) women receiving incapacity benefit payments made on mental health grounds in relation to (i) depression, (ii) stress, (iii) anxiety and (iv) behavioural problems received these payments for longer than five years in each year since 1997; and if he will break these payments down by region; [164718]

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women receiving incapacity benefit payments made on mental health grounds in relation to (i) anxiety and (ii) behavioural problems received these payments for longer than

  Incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance commencements each year since 1997 by diagnosis, and whether they previously received JSA

  Year to November

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Men

  All IB/SDA commencements with a diagnosis of depression of which the following were:

  56.2

  51.7

  55.3

  58.6

  59.7

  59.7

  61.9

  Previously receiving JSA (income based)

  23.1

  18.7

  20.5

  20.9

  21.8

  22.3

  22.6

  Previously receiving JSA (contributory)

  3.5

  3.5

  4.1

  3.8

  3.8

  4.2

  4.6

  Previously receiving JSA (IB and C)1

  1.0

  0.8

  1.2

  1.0

  0.9

  1.4

  1.3

  All IB/SDA commencements with a diagnosis of stress/anxiety of which the following were:

  39.1

  35.0

  35.4

  36.3

  36.5

  35.5

  33.9

  Previously receiving JSA (income based)

  15.2

  12.1

  12.8

  13.7

  13.2

  11.6

  11.8

  Previously receiving JSA (contributory)

  2.3

  2.1

  2.2

  1.7

  1.9

  2.1

  2.3

  Previously receiving JSA (IB and C)1

  0.6

  0.6

  0.6

  20.4

  0.6

  0.6

  0.6

  All IB/SDA commencements with a diagnosis of behavioural issues of which the following were:

  20.1

  —

  —

  20.1

  —

  —

  —

  Previously receiving JSA (income based)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Previously receiving JSA (contributory)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Previously receiving JSA (IB and C)1 of which the following were:

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  668W
  (A) one month, (B) six months, (C) a year, (D) two years and (E) five years in each year since 1997; and if he will break these payment down by region. [164719]

  Maria Eagle
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) men and (b) women receiving incapacity benefit made on mental health grounds in each year since 1997 in relation to (i) stress, (ii) behavioural issues, (iii) anxiety and (iv) depression previously received (A) income-based and (B) contribution-based jobseeker's allowance. [164720]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.
  669W

  Incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance commencements each year since 1997 by diagnosis, and whether they previously received JSA

  Year to November

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Women

  All IB/SDA commencements with a diagnosis of depression of which the following were:

  51.7

  51.4

  51.1

  54.3

  57.2

  59.3

  56.5

  Previously receiving JSA (income based)

  11.6

  10.3

  11.2

  12.1

  12.2

  12.0

  12.4

  Previously receiving JSA (contributory)

  2.7

  2.3

  2.2

  2.4

  2.4

  2.9

  2.9

  Previously receiving JSA (IB and C)1

  0.5

  20.3

  20.2

  20.3

  20.2

  20.2

  20.3

  All IB/SDA commencements with a diagnosis of stress/anxiety of which the following were:

  33.8

  30.8

  30.8

  32.7

  32.2

  31.6

  30.2

  Previously receiving JSA (income based))

  7.4

  5.8

  6.7

  6.2

  6.3

  6.0

  5.8

  Previously receiving JSA (contributory)

  2.0

  1.8

  1.5

  1.8

  1.4

  1.6

  1.7

  Previously receiving JSA (IB and C1

  20.2

  20.1

  20.2

  20.1

  20.2

  20.1

  20.1

  All IB/SDA commencements with a diagnosis of behavioural issues of which the following were:

  2.9

  3.0

  2.7

  2.4

  2.4

  2.6

  2.2

  Previously receiving JSA (income based)

  20.3

  20.3

  20.3

  20.2

  20.2

  20.1

  20.3

  Previously receiving JSA(contributory)

  20.2

  20.1

  20.2

  20.2

  20.2

  20.1

  20.1

  Previously receiving JSA (IB and C)1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Analysis considers whether or not an individual has received JSA in the year prior to commencement of their receipt of IB/SDA. Some individuals have received both JSA(IB) And JSA(C) in the year previous to their receipt of IB/SDA.

  2 Figures are subject to a high degree of sampling error and should only be used as a guide.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are shown in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. These figures have been updated to include late notified commencements. All figures back to 1995 have been revised, and may be subject to further change: figures prior to 2002 are subject to minor changes; figures for 2002 include fewer late notifications than previous quarters and will be subject to greater change in future; figures for the latest quarter do not include any late notifications and are subject to major changes in future quarters. For illustration purposes, total commencements for November 2002 increased by 15 per cent. in the year following their initial release.

  3. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  4. It is not possible to separate out the stress and anxiety categories.

  5. All diagnoses are coded using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, published by the World Health Organisation.

  Source:

  DWP-IAD Information center, 5 per cent. samples.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the expansion of the specialist personal adviser service to support longer-term incapacity benefit recipients announced in the Budget will be available(a) for the Jobcenter Plus pathways to work pilots and (b) to all New Deal for Disabled People programmes. [167241]

  Maria Eagle
  In his recent Budget statement, my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced new measures to be piloted in the seven Jobcentre Plus Pathways to Work areas.

  We will provide three additional mandatory work-focused interviews (WFIs) for those incapacity benefits claimants who started a claim in the two years before the pilots started, excluding the most severely incapacitated cases. These interviews will be designed to identify those who retain an interest in getting back to work and to provide effective support to enable them to do that. In addition, we will offer a new job preparation premium of £20 per week, payable for a maximum of 26 weeks to encourage participation in relevant activity that supports a return to work. These measures will be brought in from early next year and will be fully evaluated.

  Existing IB recipients attending WFIs will be offered access to New Deal for Disabled People as part of the range of provision currently available in Pathways to Work areas.
  670W

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the categories of pension credit recipient who are entitled to a level of guarantee credit in excess of the standard level. [167319]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The guarantee credit provides, or contributes towards, a guaranteed minimum level of income of £105.45 a week for single people aged 60 and over (£160.95 for couples). These standard amounts may be more for people who have caring responsibilities, are severely disabled or have certain housing costs.

  For some people who were getting transitional protection in their income support or jobseeker's allowance before they started to get pension credit a transitional extra amount may be included.

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions from what date entitlement to the State Second Pension will accrue on a flat-rate basis; and if he will make a statement. [167318]

  Malcolm Wicks
  No decision has been taken as yet regarding the date from which State Second Pension may begin to accrue on a flat-rate basis.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Chairman of the Service Authorities (NCIS/NCS)
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I have appointed Paul Lever as the Chairman of the Service Authorities for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad from 1 April 2004.

  I have also reappointed Caroline Burton and Jennie Harvey as independent members for a further two years from the same date.

  These appointments will continue until such time as the arrangements for the Serious Organised Crime Agency are established.

  Managed Migration
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am today announcing a series of measures to prevent abuse of immigration routes open to those wishing to come to this United Kingdom to study, work and marry here. These measures build on work which IND has been taking forward over several months, together with other departments, and which I indicated to the House on 30 March when I set out the next stage of policy in this area. They have been finalised by a series of managed migration taskforces, which we have set up to bring together policy, operational and intelligence personnel, enabling better co-ordination and focus. I am confident that the resulting package of measures achieves the necessary balance, in these areas, between facilitating the vast majority of genuine applicants from whom this country derives enormous benefits and protecting the system against actual and potential abuse. Other areas remain under review.

  Students

  The Government will establish a list of accredited private colleges. Discussions are already well advanced with the British Council and others on accreditation of English language schools. We will establish a scheme to broaden this to other colleges.

  By the end of the year we will be in a position of only issuing visas to students attending accredited colleges. In the meantime, where there are doubts about whether a college not on the list is bona fide, applications will be put on hold while the Home Office investigates them. An urgent programme of such investigations will begin next week.

  We will be consulting on introducing a requirement for all educational institutions to notify the Home Office where a foreign student does not enrol, or enrols and then disappears.
  24WS
  We will also step up enforcement. This will include targeted multi-agency enforcement operations to disrupt proprietors of sham institutions and remove illegal staff and/or students. We will create more Risk Assessment Units in Embassies abroad to work alongside entry clearance staff and improve the flow of intelligence on fraud and abuse.

  We will consult on a requirement on foreign students to demonstrate self-sufficiency, and ability to meet the financial requirements of the course before granting entry clearance.

  Marriage

  I am announcing today that we will legislate to restrict the capacity to authorise marriages involving foreign nationals from outside the EEA to a number of designated register offices. We are consulting with registrars about the most effective means of doing so. This will enable expertise to be built up on abuse and mean that we can focus our enforcement efforts. Clearly not all marriages involving foreign nationals present the same level of risk in terms of immigration abuse: for example, foreign nationals who have been resident here for many years. We will be working with registrars to refine our proposals to achieve the necessary balance between facilitating the vast majority of genuine applicants and protecting the system from abuse.

  We will also consult on making further changes to the marriage laws to reinforce these proposals, including empowering registrars to refuse to conduct a marriage they suspect is being carried out for the purposes of illegal immigration, until it has been properly investigated by the immigration authorities.

  The Government will underpin these changes through a better co-ordinated intelligence-led focus on marriage abuse supported by an effective enforcement response where cases of abuse are detected.

  In the coming months there will be a major new enforcement effort targeting sham marriages and those who organise them with the aim of arresting those engaged in such marriages and, where appropriate, prosecuting the organised criminality behind them.

  We are strengthening current arrangements for joint working between caseworkers and immigration officers to ensure a better focus on analysing intelligence, and more effective following up reports, for example from Registrars about suspicious marriages.

  We will set up a joint working group between the Home Office and Registrars to share intelligence and enable the enforcement effort and other counter-measures to be better targeted.

  Quota-Based Schemes

  The temporary quota based schemes for the hospitality and food processing industries are due to be reviewed at the end of May in the light of EU enlargement. I have also ordered a review of the quota based scheme for agricultural workers, for the same reason—around a third of these places were filled last year by nationals of the new EU accession states.

  I have decided that in consultation with industry, we will at the end of May be setting reduced quotas for these schemes to reflect the fact that from 1 May accession nationals will be able to come and work

  25WS
  through the planned workers registration scheme. We will be able to take account of early information from the registration scheme in revising the quotas.

  We will at the same time review control of both schemes.

  ECAA

  We will also be looking at the rules and practices for ECAA applications, from the remaining countries who will be covered by that scheme after 1 May, taking account of the outcome of the investigation, which Ken Sutton is undertaking, of procedures for dealing with ECAA applications in Bulgaria and Romania. In the meantime, ECAA applications from Romania and Bulgaria continue to be suspended.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Food Safety Promotion Board
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith)
  Copies of the Food Safety Promotion Board annual report 2002 incorporating financial statements to December 2001 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  This document provides details of the Food Safety Promotion Board's activities, its performance to the end of 2002 and its expenditure to December 2001.

  Waterways Ireland
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith)
  Copies of the Waterways Ireland Annual Report and Accounts for the year ended 31 December 2002 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  This document provides details of Waterways Ireland's activities, its performance, and its expenditure for that year.

DEFENCE

  Defence Science and Technology Laboratory
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The following key targets have been agreed for the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) for Financial Year 2004–05.At least maintain overall customer satisfaction and understanding of Dstl; by 31 March 2005 implement new methodology and set the baseline against which Dstl will monitor and improve its customer relationships in the future.
  Maintain and by the end of a three-year period show an increase in score for scientific and engineering capability in the technical benchmarking exercise from 67 per cent. in 2002–03 to 72 per cent. in 2005–06.
  By 31 July 2004 publish an update of Dstl's technical strategy that identifies the key technical issues and Dstl's role in addressing them, and by 31 March 2005 agree with MOD a future process that ensures that Dstl aligns itself with MOD's S and T outputs.
  Achieve planned progress to meet the completion date of 2008 for the transfer of Dstl onto three core sites at Porton Down, Portsdown West and Fort Halstead. Key milestones in 2004–05 are: issue the invitation to tender for the site rationalisation and facilities management contract
  26WS
  (December 2004); pilot office layout options (March 2005); produce a plan for site remediation at Porton Down (October 2004).
  Pilot at least three areas of category management—procurement of manpower technical support, travel and laboratory equipment—to achieve cost and efficiency savings of £5.5 million by 31 March 2005.
  Maintain the averages charge rate for manpower for 2004–05 and beyond below that for 2001–02 uplifted by GDP deflator.
  Achieve a ROCE of at least 3.5 per cent. and a MOD dividend of £3 million1.
  1 In addition to the 2004–05 ROCE target of at least 3.5 per cent. Dstl will aim to achieve a ROCE of at least 3.5 per cent. averaged across the period 2004–05 to 2008–09, as agreed with HM Treasury.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  House of Lords Reform
  The Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
  I have today published the responses to the consultation paper"Next steps for the House of Lords", and a Government summary of these. Copies of the summary have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The individual responses are available on the Department for Constitutional Affairs' website, www.dca.gov.uk.

TREASURY

  Community Budget 2004
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  The Statement on the 2004 Budget of the European Communities (EC Budget), entitled "European Community Finances" (Cm 6134), has today been laid before Parliament. This White Paper is the twenty-fourth in the series. Ns in the past, it covers annual budgetary matters and includes details of recent developments in European Community financial management and in countering fraud against the EC Budget. It also describes the EC Budget for 2004 as adopted by the European Parliament, and details the United Kingdom's gross and net contributions to the EC Budget for calendar years 1998 to 2004 and financial years 1998–99 to 2005–06.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Single Payment Scheme (English Regions)
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  On 12 February I announced the basis upon which the new single payment will be calculated in England once the scheme comes into operation next year. As part of those arrangements, I said that England would be divided into two regions, namely the severely disadvantaged areas of the less favoured areas (SDA) and land outside the SDA.
  27WS
  Since that announcement, I have been approached by a number of key representative interests who have argued that the original proposal did not adequately reflect the extent of the different land types in England. They have requested a further division of land in England that would identify moorland within the SDA as a separate region. They argued that this would more closely reflect land conditions and productive capacity and, therefore, current subsidy payments.

  I have given careful consideration to those representations and to others which have argued for alternative solutions. However the further refinement of a moorland line within the SDA was ultimately the proposal of all the main representative bodies.

  One of the purposes of setting the regional boundaries as proposed was to provide some limitation on the redistributive effects of the move to the new flat rate single payment. I accept that the boundaries as announced might have resulted in redistribution of subsidy away from more productive SDA land to less productive moorland. I have therefore decided to amend the regional boundaries as announced on 12 February.

  The regions in England will now comprise the moorland within the upland SDA; the rest of the upland SDA; and all land outside the upland SDA. The upland SDA comprises all the areas classified in accordance with Article 3(4) of Directive 75, 268/EEC. It does not include the Isles of Scilly which were classified as a less favoured area in accordance with Article 3(5) of that Directive.
  28WS
  In selecting moorland in the SDA as one of the regions, I am aware that it is possible that there may be some minor inaccuracies in the location of the boundary at certain points. I am therefore considering whether and what practical arrangements can be made for consideration of representations on this issue as part of the arrangements for the introduction of the new scheme. I will make a further statement on this at an early date.

  I recognise that this decision to amend the regional boundaries may come as a disappointment to some. Although there will be farmers in the SDA who will gain from this decision, some others, particularly those within the moorland line, will see payments at a lower level than would have been the case under the original announcement, and in some cases less than their coupled historic receipts.

  We will need to see that hill farming communities receive appropriate support from other sources, including the England rural development programme. The hill farm allowance scheme will continue to operate for the remainder of the current England rural development programme (up to the end of 2006). In addition, I want to ensure that farms in the uplands have a full opportunity to be rewarded for improved environmental management of their land, including through agri-environment schemes. I have therefore asked my officials to consider how the next round of rural development programming (from 2007 onwards), can better reflect the needs of upland communities, and the public interest in good management of some of our best-loved landscapes.

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.

Biofuels
Lord Palmer Lord Palmer asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect to meet the European Union requirement that the United Kingdom biofuel target for the end of 2005 be submitted by 1 July.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government will still be consulting on that point on 1 July. It will therefore be our proposed indicative target that we shall report to the Commission by that date.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he explain why there has been such a dramatic delay, when the need to submit the target has been known since last May?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, given the noble Lord's intensive knowledge of the issues, he is as well placed as anyone in the House to recognise how difficult it is to get them right. So far as we are concerned, the important thing with the consultation document is that all stakeholders should be presented with a clear indication of how the Government can take the matter forward, against a background where we have all taken some constructive action already. It is important to get the issues right. That is why the consultation document, which will be issued shortly, will clearly define the objectives.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Government accepted an amendment to the Energy Bill at Third Reading on Tuesday that gives them a power to implement a renewable transport fuel obligation to meet the targets in the EU directive. How will the timetable for consultation to which my noble friend referred be linked to the passage of the Energy Bill in the other place? Will the draft regulations to implement the EU directive be available before the Energy Bill receives Royal Assent?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, the timetable for the passage of the Energy Bill through the other place is tight. It is important that we get the Bill on the statute book by the end of the summer. I cannot assure the noble Lord that the regulations will be published by then, but I can assure him that we recognise that the European directive must be implemented by December this year, and we are fully on course to meet that requirement.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, after all the Questions and debates initiated by my noble friend Lord Palmer, it seems incredible that the
378
Government have made so little progress in the past 12 months towards getting a solution? Yet, when it comes to wind farms, which will really despoil the countryside, the Government seem to give almost willy-nilly approval to anything at 400 feet and upwards.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, first, the Government have introduced in the Budget the 20p derogation on biofuels, which is settled for the next three years. Therefore, it is not quite fair of the noble Lord to suggest that the Government have done nothing. Secondly, in this of all weeks it would be a tad churlish of noble Lords not to recognise that the acceptance of the amendment at Third Reading of the Energy Bill earlier this week regarding the possibility of a renewables obligation was a significant and constructive step.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, if the biofuel targets proposed in the EU directive were achieved, what could be the CO2, emissions savings by 2010, and what would be the cost benefit of those savings?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a tough question. I do not have the briefing on the 2010 perspective. However, I can assure the noble Lord that we recognise that biofuels can contribute to the crucial reduction of emissions. We are committed, in our consultation process, to our determination to meet the requirements of the directive by December 2004, and by the action that we have already taken to encourage use of biofuels, to do our part in meeting the objectives. However, it will be recognised that all European states regard the indicative positions on the targets for 2005 and 2010 as very demanding.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government are unlikely to achieve their target of 2 per cent by 2005? In a Written Answer, on 18 December, it was made clear that at the moment 2 million litres a month are being sold, which represents only 0.05 per cent. To achieve that target the Government would have to quadruple the amount being sold. How will they do that?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is not the Government's target; it is the indicative target in the European directive. As I have indicated, many European states regard the target as very demanding. We certainly do, because we are starting from a lower base than is Germany, for example. But the noble Baroness will recognise that we have taken action and are setting out to meet the requirements of the European directive so far as we can. Our consultation document will advance that cause, and on Tuesday this week we accepted an amendment to the Energy Bill which also adds to the possibilities with regard to the policy.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, is there evidence that energy produced through the biofuel route is any less hopelessly uneconomic compared to routes other than wind power?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, neither are hopelessly uneconomic. Both are immensely desirable.

379
both with regard to climate change and reducing CO2 emissions. No one pretends that we can tackle these global and British problems without some significant costs being involved. We all recognise that the changes in our energy policy required by these objectives involve considerable costs.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister realise that many of us believe that the Government's energy policy and the Government's environment policy will lack credibility, so long as they fail to recognise that oil is both too scarce and too polluting to continue to be used in the longer term for the generation of electricity? What is needed is a much more rapid rethink of the need to move to nuclear power.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I was taking some joy from the opening remarks presented by the noble Lord. He is so right that we cannot depend on oil to the extent that we have in the past, both in terms of its availability and, crucially, because it pollutes the atmosphere. The solution does not lie in one route only. Certainly, it is the case that both wind farms and biofuels have their contributions to make in providing clean energy.

National Health Service: Specialised Treatments
11.14 a.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the new arrangements for Commissioning of specialised treatments in the National Health Service are functioning.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, all primary care trusts are now actively involved in one of the 26 local specialised Commissioning groups set up across the country. As members of these groups, PCTs work together to Commission specialised services. This year's work programme for each Commissioning group demonstrates that a substantial number of specialised services are now being planned collectively. For certain specialised services where the financial risks are high, collective funding arrangements are in place, including financial risk-sharing between PCTs.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the Specialised Healthcare Alliance and the Royal College of Physicians are concerned that while some PCTs are doing their job well, others are inadequate? Does he agree that postcode prescribing for specialised services is unacceptable, when it can be a matter of life and death, and of quality of life for patients?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am aware of the survey that the noble Baroness mentioned, although I have not read it, because I understand that it is still in draft form. We welcome the broad findings of that survey, which was carried out by the Specialised Healthcare Alliance. It shows that a good start has been made by PCTs to work together to Commission specialised services. It makes the point that a number of improvements can be made. We shall be looking at those suggestions carefully, and we hope to respond to them positively. The Government have made clear our position on postcode prescribing, and we are taking action to try to improve the implementation of NICE guidance in that area.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Audit Commission and the Commission for Health Improvement have both said that some primary care trusts lack management capacity, basic information and the capacity to monitor their output? In view of these well informed comments, would not the best way forward be to focus on improving these aspects of the work of the primary care trusts?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I recognise the points made by my noble friend, but as my Answer made clear, we have made big steps forward since the Government issued guidance in March 2003 in the area of specialised Commissioning. I accepted, in response to the supplementary question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that improvements could be made that have come out of the survey. We will be taking those forward. I do not accept, however, that PCTs are not working together now to improve the way in which they collectively Commission specialised services.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the real difficulties is where a small specialty is involved? Is he aware of the situation at Hammersmith hospital regarding pulmonary hypertension? Although this is meant to be funded through the regional specialised Commissioning group, unfortunately it has not considered it a priority, although it has a national designation. There must be other similar specialties where small numbers of people are suffering from a highly dangerous condition that is expensive to treat. What special arrangements are made for these people?
Lord Warner: My Lords, there are two tiers of specialised Commissioning. There is Commissioning in relation to specialties where the catchment area is 1 million to 2 million people, and there is another area where the specialised Commissioning is done for catchment areas of 3 million to 6 million people. At the national level, there are very few rare diseases that are nationally Commissioned, but these are where the treatments are extremely expensive. I do not have information on the position in Hammersmith, but I will look into it, and I will write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, may I declare a non-financial interest on taking up the chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance, which comprises 26 patient groups affected by these regulations? Is my noble friend satisfied

381
with the role that strategic health authorities are playing at the moment in the monitoring of these arrangements? Does he agree that they must be effectively engaged if the arrangements are to be equitable for patients across the country?
Lord Warner: My Lords, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the survey suggests that improvements could be made in the way in which strategic health authorities are pursuing their role in this area. We accept that, where there is a need to make improvements, they should be made. It is certainly the role of the strategic health authorities to monitor the performance of all the trusts in their area.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is some concern about where specialist services fall and about the position of different types within existing patterns for purchasing products? Will the Government keep that under review, and when will we hear the results of any such review?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government keep such issues under review, which is why we will study carefully the findings of the specialised Commissioning survey that has been mentioned on several occasions. I could delight your Lordships' House with a large number of splendid examples of good specialised services Commissioning. I could mention the east Midlands and South Yorkshire, where the 13 PCTs come together; the 30 PCTs doing good work in the West Midlands on haemophilia and pulmonary hypertension; or the good work going on in London in genetics, haemophilia and sickle-cell screening. There are many more such examples, and we should not give the impression that good Commissioning of specialised services is not going on.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those good Commissioning arrangements are not working effectively for people with a spinal cord injury? The Spinal Injuries Association helpdesk receives many inquiries from people who have spent a long time in a general hospital and have developed severe complications—MRSA, pressure sores and so on—as a result. Treatment for people with a spinal cord injury has deteriorated rapidly under the new arrangements.
Lord Warner: My Lords, there are 11 spinal injury units in the UK, including eight in England. It is the responsibility of SHAs and primary care trusts to assess the healthcare needs of their population and Commission services in this area. I am aware that there has been a little trouble in Stoke Mandeville, but those issues have been resolved. The Government have done much to improve services in this area.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the problems with specialised Commissioning that does not appear to have been brought out by the survey is the bureaucratic nature of the application process? Before a doctor can prescribe a treatment, he
382
or she must, if the treatment is expensive, apply to the PCT for approval for the treatment. That application process is extremely bureaucratic and imposes a delay that, in some cases, may be life-threatening. Will the Government examine that concern seriously?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we have shifted the balance of power so that it is down to the PCTs to decide priorities in their area and their system. I take note of what the noble Earl said, but we must accept that local priorities are the order of the day.

Smoking in Public Places
11.23 a.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are contemplating similar action to that of the Irish Government in banning smoking in public places.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government have consistently said that smoke-free enclosed public places are the ideal. There are no plans to ban smoking in enclosed public places, but we look forward to faster and more substantial progress on smoke-free places from employers and businesses, especially the hospitality industry.
On 3 March, we launched a major public health consultation that included questions about smoking in public places. Responses to that consultation will inform a White Paper later in the year.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer, although I am not enthusiastic about it.
Is my noble friend aware that, according to early reports, sales of cigarettes in the Republic of Ireland have fallen quite significantly since the introduction of the ban? Even heavy smokers in Ireland to whom I have spoken welcome the ban. Is it not the answer for the Government to show some imagination and courage on the issue and do what the Republic of Ireland has done? As we have a common border with the Republic of Ireland, it would make sense to do the same.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government are always looking for good ideas, from all sources. We will monitor carefully what is going on in Ireland.
I remind my noble friend that we have started a process of consultation. It includes specific sets of questions on which we have encouraged people to make their views known. We will await the outcome of that process before taking any further measures.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with the estimate made by ASH that 4,800 people die every year from diseases caused by passive smoking? Does he also agree with the SmokeFree London campaign, which estimates that 1,100 beds in hospitals in our capital are

383
taken up by people with a disease caused by smoking? In view of those horrifying statistics, is not the Minister's attitude rather complacent?
Lord Warner: My Lords, neither my attitude nor that of the Government is complacent. The Government have nothing to be ashamed of in the work that they have done to reduce the use of tobacco, to control the supply of tobacco to price tobacco products appropriately and to educate the public and make available information about the dangers of smoking. However, we have to go through a process of consultation about public places and workplaces, and we want to hear what people have to say.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, do the Government recognise that two-thirds to three-quarters of people in Wales consistently wish to have a ban on smoking in public places? That result is a credit to the work that they have done to raise awareness of the dangers of smoking and passive smoking. The time is coming when people should be allowed to have regulations that they specifically want.
Lord Warner: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, I have no responsibilities relating to Wales in this area. This is not the time to get into the terms of the noble Baroness's Bill, which we will discuss tomorrow. The Government have done much to increase public awareness of the dangers of second-hand smoking.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, the Government appear somewhat ambivalent, proposing that there should be a reduced level of smoking in the workplace while supporting through the common agricultural policy the promotion of the growing of tobacco in the European Union. Will my noble friend give an undertaking to the House that, at each stage of decision-making about the CAP budget, a report will be submitted to Parliament stating precisely the action that Her Majesty's Government have taken to propose the abolition of that subsidy, the way in which they promoted that point of view and their degree of success.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I say gently to my noble friend that the common agricultural policy is a little wide of the mark with regard to this Question.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Warner: My Lords, it is good to see unanimity in the House. I am deeply touched by the support for the common agricultural policy from the Benches opposite, in particular. I shall look into the points that my noble friend made and draw them to the attention of my noble friends.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can the Minister be diverted from the illiberal attitude of even thinking of banning smoking in public places? I am in your Lordships' House only because my father smoked and
384
died at the age of 57. That is why I have been here for a long time. That, in itself, may be a good reason for not having me here.
The proposal is illiberal. People are grown up enough now to know that smoking is incredibly bad for them. It is very unpleasant. People cough up globules of disgustingness, and it does them no good whatsoever. However, stopping people killing themselves in their own way—and so saving the pension money—is thoroughly illiberal.
Lord Warner: My Lords, if only the noble Earl's father had been alive during the time of this Government, we could have advised him of the dangers of his behaviour.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is it not dangerous to follow the noble Earl's argument that it is simply an issue of the liberty of those who want to smoke and damage their own health? The crucial point about a ban on smoking in public places is the protection of non-smokers, whose health can be harmed by others who choose to harm themselves.
Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Survey after survey has shown that a large number of people, including smokers, think that there should be restrictions on their exposure to second-hand smoke in public places. The Government want to hear what people have to say in the consultation that is in progress. We await the public's opinion.

Midwives
11.29 a.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton Baroness Gould of Potternewton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What actions are being taken to ensure more student midwives qualify and enter the profession in view of the decline in the number of registered midwives.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the number of registered midwives is not in decline. The Nursing & Midwifery Council figures showing that there are fewer practising midwives in the UK are wrong and have been withdrawn. There are 1,300 more midwives working in the NHS now than in 2000. The Government are increasing midwifery training places. In 2002–03, 2,110 students entered midwifery training; that is, 28 per cent more than in 1996–97.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Is he aware that although the figures are being readjusted by the NMC, they will still show that there is a sharp reduction in the number of midwives taking up posts? What is being done to stop some students—I believe about one-fifth—dropping out of their courses due to inadequacies of support, particularly in

385
respect of childcare arrangements and the low level of the bursary that they receive? That creates a risk for the maternity services and urgent action is needed.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not sure that I accept my noble friend's position regarding numbers. The advice that I have received is that the N MC data—for example, in London alone—understated the numbers intending to practise by about 3,000 people. The council is working with the department, but I am advised that those figures are wrong and the number of midwives is increasing.
As regards student attrition rates, there are always some students who do not complete their courses, whether in midwifery or otherwise. If they are not qualified to do the job and have not satisfied those who verify their performance, it is appropriate that they should not qualify. The Government have substantially increased the money for NHS bursaries following action by the Chancellor in 2000.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at birth centres and midwife-led units there are waiting lists for midwives who want to work there because they can give a quality of care that they cannot give elsewhere? As a result, there are fewer interventions and there is less anguish for mothers and less morbidity for babies. Is the Minister further aware that those units are under threat of closure and that some have recently closed? Indeed, a Labour Secretary of State and the Minister's predecessor, the noble Lord. Lord Hunt, intervened to stop those closures. Will the Minister work with his colleagues to do likewise?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we want to have a wide range of different models of care and place of birth. We do not champion one model over another. Choice is important for all women. The birth rate has been falling substantially for 13 years. It has fallen from about 650,000 births per year to 540,000. In itself, that will mean that some adjustments of services may be necessary.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever the figures there is certainly a perception in the health service that too few midwives are being trained? If we are to move to a more patient-centred form of treatment during pregnancy, we must ensure that we have enough trained people. Given those circumstances and the fact that most people undergoing midwifery training are mature students, will the Government please look long and hard at their training policy and at giving sufficient support to people who are also involved in raising their own families?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I stand by what I said in my Answer about the increase in the number of midwives since 2000. The Department of Health has also funded 500 return-to-practice places. In March, we launched the 2004 recruitment campaign with television advertising. Of course, we want to generate
386
more applications for midwifery, but the numbers of student places are increasing. Again, I make the point that the birth rate is going down.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister know how many midwives come from abroad?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have that information to hand, but I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the shortage of midwives is evidenced by the vacancy rate which, in London and the south-east in particular, is acute? The vacancy percentage across the UK is around 5.4 per cent of funded establishment, but in London it is 18.3 per cent. Is there anything that the Government can do to ameliorate the situation, particularly in London and the south-east, where the cost of living is very high?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we accept that across the country vacancy rates rose marginally in 2003. In part, that was because we increased the number of funded posts ahead of their being filled. Vacancy rates can be cut by cutting the number of posts, just as train punctuality can be increased by saying that journeys should take longer. We can play statistical games in that area. We accept that there is a shortage of midwives in some parts of London. Agenda for Change will give more flexibility for local PCTs and trusts to offer higher rates.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
11.36 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the instruction of 30 March to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill has been committed be varied so that the Committee consider Clause 14, and Schedules 1 and 2, after Clause 35.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Higher Education Bill
Lord Grocott: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

387
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Higher Education Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 13,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clause 14,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 15 and 16,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 17 to 29,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 30 to 45,

Schedule 6,

Clause 46,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 47 to 50.—(Lord Grocott.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Partnership Bill [H.L.]
11.37 a.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
As this House is aware, same-sex couples are unable to marry and cannot gain legal recognition of their relationships. The lack of legal recognition means that same-sex couples face many difficult issues as they seek to organise their lives together.
Two years ago, this House discussed a Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to whom I pay tribute today—although I see that, for some unfortunate reason, he is not in his place. During a full and constructive debate, this House acknowledged the difficulties experienced by same-sex couples. We touched on areas as diverse as hospital visiting, intestacy and pension rights.
The Government made a commitment to explore how those inequalities could best be addressed, which, since that debate, we have endeavoured to do. The Government have undertaken a comprehensive review of the law and how it applies to same-sex couples. Over the past two years, considerable hard work has gone into that endeavour. We have considered the specific problems faced by same-sex couples as a result of the failure to give legal recognition to their relationships.
We found that problems can arise in a wider range of areas than might immediately first spring to mind. For example, where an accident causes the death of a person in a same-sex relationship, the other person in that relationship may find that he or she faces specific difficulties in obtaining access to the body, information about circumstances leading to or surrounding the death, or, indeed, compensation. Following a partner's death, they may find themselves unable to stay in the home they have shared with that partner for many years. Sometimes there have even been difficulties about attending events as intimate as funerals.
388
We have put together what we consider to be a measured and proportionate response to those problems. Civil partnership would allow those same-sex couples who wish to do so to gain legal recognition for their relationship. This legal recognition would be accompanied by a set of rights and responsibilities to reflect the commitment that the couple had made to each other.
In June 2003, we released our proposals for public consultation in England and Wales. Since then, separate consultation exercises have followed for Scotland and Northern Ireland. This consultation has been accompanied by informed and constructive debate in the public sphere over the question of recognition of same-sex couples.
We have, then, a Bill that is the product of two years' serious and intensive work by the Government and which has been shaped by consultation with stakeholders and the public at large, and informed by debate in this House and elsewhere. We are confident that the Bill places civil partnership firmly in the civil sphere of our national life. The strength of the Bill is that it offers a secular solution to the disadvantages which same-sex couples face in the way they are treated by our laws.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the issues that have been widely debated over the past two years. Noble Lords will recall that when the civil partnership Bill promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, sought to include opposite-sex couples, there was a great deal of debate. The debate in this House focused heavily on that element of his Bill and many felt that this would undermine marriage. This Bill does not undermine or weaken the importance of marriage and we do not propose to open civil partnership to opposite-sex couples. Civil partnership is aimed at same-sex couples who cannot marry.
However, it is important for us to be clear that we continue to support marriage and recognise that it is the surest foundation for opposite-sex couples raising children. We also recognise, as did many in this House, that a number of people face difficulties on the breakdown of a relationship or upon the death of one partner when the couple are not married. Many of these difficulties come as a complete surprise to couples who believe in the myth of so-called "common-law marriage". The Department for Constitutional Affairs is currently doing work that will address this myth, pointing out the differences in rights and responsibilities between married and unmarried couples, and suggesting ways that unmarried couples can protect themselves if things go wrong.
Then there is the issue of other home-sharers. Some people have discussed the position of family members, siblings, and people who share homes. This is a quite separate issue from that which the Bill seeks to address. Family members, be they parent and child or siblings, have a legally recognised relationship to each other. These relationships, which already afford certain rights, are widely acknowledged and accepted in society. A same-sex couple who have shared a relationship over many years can still be treated as complete strangers by the law.
While home-sharers may be concerned about financial issues, the full range of issues faced by same-sex couples is something entirely different. This Bill seeks to address issues for one group of people, namely

389
same-sex couples. It is not a cure-all for the financial problems of those outside marriage. Noble Lords may know that other distinguished minds in the Law Commission have long wrestled with this issue. Having looked at it in great detail, they have concluded that the solution in every case depended on the nature of the relationship. That is why this Bill is specifically designed to look simply at same-sex couple relationships. That is its clear purpose and that is its clear content.
Having set out the context of our proposals, I turn now to the provisions of the Bill itself. I intend, if I may, to outline these in some detail so that noble Lords have a clear understanding of the framework that we seek to put in place.
Part 1 defines a civil partnership and the time at which it is formed and when it ends. Eligible same-sex couples will be able to register as civil partners in England and Wales, in Scotland, or in Northern Ireland under the relevant part of the Bill. Provision will also be made by Order in Council for registration outside the United Kingdom at British consulates or by Armed Forces personnel serving overseas in circumstances similar to those where marriage can take place. In addition, same-sex relationships registered overseas that meet specific criteria would be treated as civil partnerships under our law. A civil partnership would come to an end only on the death of a partner, dissolution or annulment.
Part 2 sets out the procedures for forming or dissolving a civil partnership in England and Wales, and the rights and responsibilities that would flow from the relationship. Chapter 1 sets out the procedures for registering as civil partners and the eligibility criteria that must be met before two people may do so. Two people of the same sex would be able to register as civil partners of each other, provided that both were either over 18 years old, or over 16 with the necessary consent from, for example, a parent or guardian; that neither was in an existing civil partnership or marriage; and that they were not within the prohibited degrees of relationship. Schedule 1 gives details of these prohibited degrees, which include the relationships between siblings and those between parents and children. So forming a civil partnership would be a secular process and Chapter 1 gives details of this.
Having given notice to the registration authority of their intention to register, a same-sex couple would need to wait at least 15 days while the necessary checks were made on their eligibility. After this, at a time and in a place agreed between the couple and the local authority, the couple would sign the civil partnership document in the presence of a civil partnership registrar and two witnesses. In keeping with the secular nature of the process, registration could not take place in religious premises.
A ceremony would not form part of the statutory process. Responses to the England and Wales consultation suggested that while some same-sex couples would welcome a ceremony, others would not. The local authority would be free to offer the option of
390
a ceremony in addition if it wished. Whether or not a ceremony were to take place would be a decision for the couple and the local authority concerned.
Chapter 2 contains provisions relating to dissolution, nullity and other proceedings. It is proposed that civil partnerships could be ended only by a formal, court-based process. This is in keeping with the serious nature of the responsibilities that civil partners would have towards each other. The person applying for a dissolution would need to provide evidence that the civil partnership had broken down irretrievably. The court would inquire as far as possible into the facts alleged by the applicant and any facts alleged by their partner. If the court was satisfied on the evidence that the civil partnership had broken down irretrievably, a dissolution order would be granted. Chapter 2 sets out the facts that have to be proved to show the irretrievable breakdown of a civil partnership. It also makes provision for annulment of void or voidable civil partnerships, and for the legal separation of civil partners.
Chapter 3 gives details of the property and financial arrangements applying to civil partnerships, while Chapter 4 concerns the position where two people have agreed to form a civil partnership.
There are already same-sex couples in the UK who are raising children together. Chapter 5 proposes a series of measures to ensure that the provisions relating to children will apply to the rights of children of these families in the same way as to children of a marriage.
Chapter 6 deals with miscellaneous issues including the making of false statements and the rights of civil partners in relation to housing and tenancies, family homes and domestic violence, and fatal accidents claims.
Part 3 deals with provisions relating to Scotland. Chapter 1 deals with formation and eligibility; Chapter 2 with registration; Chapter 3 with occupancy rights and tenancies; Chapter 4 with interdicts; Chapter 5 with dissolution, separation and nullity; and Chapter 6 with miscellaneous issues and interpretation.
There are some differences between the provisions for civil partnership outlined for Scotland and those for England and Wales. Most of these differences are minor and of a procedural nature and reflect the distinctive character of Scots law.
In accordance with the Sewel convention, the Scottish Executive has informed the Government that it intends to place a Motion before the Scottish Parliament, seeking its agreement that the provisions of the Bill may extend to Scotland in relation to devolved matters.
Part 4 of the Bill deals with provisions relating to Northern Ireland. As yet, these are incomplete. We intend to add further provisions by amendment. As is the case with Scotland, there will be some differences between the provisions for civil partnership for Northern Ireland and England and Wales. Most of these differences are minor and of a procedural nature, and reflect the distinct legal system in Northern Ireland.

391
Part 5 of the Bill is concerned with the treatment of relationships formed or dissolved abroad. Chapter 1 allows provision to be made by Order in Council for registration at British consulates, and in the case of Armed Forces personnel serving overseas, in circumstances similar to those where marriage can take place.
There is no common concept of same-sex registered partnership in other countries across the world. As regards relationships formed in other jurisdictions, Chapter 2 of the Bill therefore defines the overseas relationships which can be treated as a civil partnership in the United Kingdom, and the requirements which have to be met for this to take place. Chapter 3 concerns the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts to hear applications for dissolution, annulment or separation, and also provides for the circumstances in which overseas dissolutions, and so on, can be recognised in the United Kingdom.
Part 6 of the Bill provides that references to certain familial relationships in legislation will be interpreted to include relationships arising through civil partnership. Parts 7 and 8 deal with a number of discrete areas of legislation which would need to be amended to reflect the existence of the new legal relationship of civil partner.
Clause 186 introduces Schedule 17 which amends child support, social security and tax credits legislation so as to enable same-sex partners to receive similar treatment to opposite-sex couples. This schedule also amends the provisions relating to the state pension system. Those state pension benefits equally available to husbands and wives will be extended to civil partners from commencement. Other state pension benefits will be extended to civil partners as the Government begin to equalise the state pension system from 2010.
Clause 187 provides a power to amend legislation relating to pensions, allowances or gratuities for the purpose of or in connection with making provisions with respect to pensions for surviving civil partners or other dependants of deceased civil partners. The intention is to use this power in relation to pension rights accrued after commencement of the Civil Partnership Bill.
Your Lordships should be aware that the Government will be tabling a number of amendments to the Bill during its passage through this House, in addition to those already mentioned in relation to Part 4 which deals with Northern Ireland. However, these are mostly minor amendments to other legislation, reflecting the introduction of civil partnership. Some additional provisions on dissolution will be moved by amendment, as well as the provisions on pension sharing on dissolution.
There will be some minor amendments to Part 5, covering recognition of partnerships entered into overseas. The inclusion of additional Northern Ireland provisions in Part 4 will have a knock-on impact on the need for amendments. The Government will also be moving some outstanding consequential provisions. I hope I will be able to write to your Lordships shortly setting out in further detail the intended amendments and their content.
392
I am very pleased to bring the Bill to the House. It is a Bill that signals clearly that same-sex couple relationships should be treated with fairness and dignity. Stable relationships are valuable both to the individuals in them and to the society that benefits from them. Whether people should look to the Government for a lead in their personal lives is perhaps a debate for another day. On this issue, however, there is a clear gap between our current legal provisions and our social reality and it is a gap that needs—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness when she is coming to the end of her extremely interesting and informative speech. Owing to the extremely stringent provisions for the dissolution of these partnerships and for their annulment, could I ask her—because it might affect the attitude of noble Lords to the Bill—what proportion of committed homosexual couples is likely to take up the opportunity of a civil partnership? It seems to be a very important point. I am sorry that I am not able to speak in the debate and therefore cannot ask the question later.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we anticipate that it may be between 5 and 10 per cent. The important thing is that those people who have committed long-term relationships should have the choice to consolidate that relationship and have it formally recognised if they so choose. But I need to make it absolutely clear that there will be no obligation upon anyone to register their relationship. It is simply that the rights and responsibilities that flow from such registration will be available only to those who make that choice. The Bill is an opportunity to give parity of treatment to those who wish to have it.
When we debated this issue on the last occasion—when the Bill of the noble Lord. Lord Lester, was before us—there were many moving and sad stories of real inequality and distress for those who had been in very long relationships and were not able to honour the nature of that relationship in a way that many thought to be appropriate. We are seeking to give people an opportunity to recognise the stability of those relationships. Whether they take advantage of this opportunity will be a matter entirely for them. There will be those who choose to do so; others who choose not to do so. But what we will have removed is a barrier which would have made it impossible for those who wish to have proper recognition and stability to obtain it.
Noble Lords will want to scrutinise the Bill's drafting and seek explanations from the Government as to why we have pursued certain courses of action. However, I hope that we can agree that the Bill seeks to achieve legal recognition for same-sex couples, provision for both rights and obligations and support for committed and stable families, and represents a sensible and logical way forward. It will be a privilege and pleasure to work with the whole House on this much needed legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
11.58 a.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, like the leader of my party, Michael Howard, I generally support the principle of the Civil Partnership Bill, as I did when a similar Private Members' Bill was introduced to this House in 2002. However, this is a Bill which touches on matters of conscience and, as always in such circumstances in our party, there will be a free vote for these Benches.
We support the principle of the Civil Partnership Bill as a measure which offers a solution to same-sex couples in committed relationships who have previously been discriminated against on issues such as inheritance, next-of-kin status and pension rights. However, we have concerns over some of the detail of the Bill, and will subject it to the proper scrutiny to ensure that it is effective in meeting its stated objectives.
The Bill as it stands does not deal with the circumstances of people living together platonically. Many of us know of circumstances in which people have made enormous sacrifices quietly and greatly contributed to society—for example, sons who have looked after ageing fathers, people with carers who have looked after them for many years, very often living in the same house. We believe that it is perfectly legitimate to raise this issue when discussing the principle of a Bill, the aim of which, after all, is to tackle practical issues of discrimination.
I have listened to the Minister's stern words on these other kinds of home-sharing relationships. I understand that there is a view that including such relationships dilutes the importance of other same-sex relationships. But, as my colleague, Alan Duncan, said—and he will be taking the Bill through another place for us—we want to press this because we think these people are unfairly disadvantaged. We want the Government to consider them afresh and further; and to extend the recognition of interdependency to another section.
The Bill has important implications for both taxation policy and social security benefits. But, given the rules which bind your Lordships' House on a Finance Bill, we would be unable to scrutinise such implications in detail on a separate Finance Bill as is proposed. Common sense surely dictates that when major changes to the law of this kind are proposed, the tax implications of the new arrangements should be considered in detail and clarified at the same time. How does the Minister propose to enable the House to do this?
Tax legislation on opposite-sex couples distinguishes very clearly between those who are married and those cohabiting. Gifts between spouses are exempt from capital gains tax, for example, and there is no inheritance tax on death for a surviving spouse. The way the Government propose to deal with such matters for civil partners—and, indeed, other people living together but unable to marry—is of great importance and relevance to the Bill.
But the Inland Revenue press release merely states that taxation will be included in the "first available Finance Bill". What on earth does that mean? Surely
394
it cannot mean that the Government do not know or have not decided. Can the Minister—or, indeed, any one of the other four or five Ministers involved with the Bill—tell the House? Will it be the Finance Bill that was given its Second Reading in the Commons a few days ago which can still be amended, or will it be the next year's Finance Bill? It raises the interesting possibility that it might be for an incoming Conservative government to codify the tax aspects of this legislation. Is that what the Government intend?
It must be wrong for the decisions which surely must have been made to be kept secret from Parliament or delayed until next year. The Bill would then have to be debated and put on the statute book without the tax or financial implications being known. That cannot be right. It would be a gross disservice to couples affected by the Bill.
There are people who are waiting for this Bill to receive Royal Assent in order to register as civil partners. Are they, like the unfortunate small businessmen and women who incorporated at the invitation of the Chancellor, going to register as civil partners one year and discover the financial implications only afterwards? The obvious approach would be to use this year's Finance Bill, although I recognise that that may leave inadequate time for these issues, as well as those covered in this year's Budget proposals, to be properly debated.
Another approach might be for this very important subject matter to be run in the Commons as a separate Finance Bill from the one already introduced. Failing that, and in order to probe the Government's thinking early and in depth in the House, which has so much under-used financial expertise, we could table amendments in Committee to explore these issues. This would force clarification of the Government's thinking and allow detailed discussion of these financial considerations in the House. Subject to what the Minister may say in reply, I reserve the right to do that.
For the Conservative Party, the family remains the most immediate and important group within which people share responsibility for one another's well-being. But families are changing; not all conform to the traditional pattern. We continue to believe that the conventional marriage and family is the best environment in which to bring up children. But many couples choose not to marry and more and more same-sex couples want to take on the shared responsibility of a committed relationship.
It is in all our interests to encourage the voluntary acceptance of such shared responsibilities but in some instances the state actively discourages it. The Bill should help to change that and make some important reforms. Far from undermining marriage the Bill will, we hope, encourage the long-term commitment and mutual support that makes marriage such a benefit to our society.
As I have worked to familiarise myself with the Bill, I have become more and more convinced that civil partnerships should come with a health warning. They are not to be entered into frivolously and they are not

395
for fun. As the Minister has reminded us, they contain rights and responsibilities. They are serious and constitute a legally binding agreement. Getting out of such an agreement will be expensive and painful. We encourage the Government to urge caution when promoting the Bill. Las Vegas is not where we are and not where we want to be.
These civil contracts will, I hope, be extended or adapted to bring mutual security and comfort to spinsters, bachelors, carers and other partnerships who are also disadvantaged by not being able to marry. To these groups, such contracts would bring financial security and peace of mind, particularly in old age. Too many of us live alone; too much of our tax legislation encourages it. Society will benefit greatly if more long-term partnerships are encouraged.
Civil partnerships, of course, differ from marriage. Marriage is a separate and special relationship which we should continue to celebrate and sustain. To recognise civil partnerships is not in any way to denigrate or downgrade marriage. As our leader in another place, Michael Howard, said:
"It is to recognise and respect the fact that many people want to live their lives in different ways. And it is not the job of the state to put barriers in their way".
In the coming weeks, with the support of my distinguished colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, we will work hard to make the very best of the Bill. We will table amendments encouraged by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, by Care and by the Solicitors Family Law Association. The devil, as always, is in the detail, but I hope that the Minister will feel encouraged that the Official Opposition support the Civil Partnership Bill. I and my leader in another place do so in principle. We wish it well on its passage through the House.
12.8 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Bill. Of course, as with the Conservatives, there will be a conscience vote, but I think that I can predict with little doubt that the vast majority of members of my party—both in your Lordships' House and in the other place—will support the Bill.
As the Minister pointed out, the Bill builds on the Civil Partnerships Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill in 2002. I am speaking in his place today because he has an important commitment in the USA, which was fixed many months ago and which he cannot change. But he will be here for the subsequent stages of the Bill.
Views in the United Kingdom on homosexuality have changed enormously in our lifetimes. Fewer than 40 years ago sexual activity between consenting adult males was a criminal offence. That law was repealed in 1967, to his eternal credit, by Roy Jenkins. The great majority of people in this country as a whole—and, indeed, in your Lordships' House—now recognise that sexual orientation towards the same sex is not a crime, nor is it an illness; it is something that, in all probability, people are born with and cannot be changed.
396
But we have also moved on from just removing criminal penalties. We have made it illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation, in employment or in the provision of goods and services. The time has now come to take another big step forward: to acknowledge that gay and lesbian people should have the same rights as heterosexuals to enter into a personal relationship recognised by law with the same consequences for taxation, succession to property and pension benefits as marriage. That is what the Bill does in general and why we support it.
I have a few comments on the principles behind the Bill. First, my noble friend Lord Lester's Bill allowed heterosexual couples as well as same-sex couples to enter into civil partnerships. This Bill is limited to same-sex partnerships. I believe that my noble friend's Bill was right on that matter. Some heterosexual couples—perhaps not many—are put off by the historical implications of the word "marriage" but would be willing to enter a legal relationship not described as marriage.
People in that group, even if they are only a few, would have benefited from the possibility of civil partnerships. But I recognise the strength of the argument that heterosexual couples have the alternative of marriage that same-sex couples do not. Therefore the answer may be to develop better legal rights between cohabitees; the current rights of cohabitees on the break-up of the cohabitation being plainly inadequate.
Secondly—this is my personal view and not necessarily that of my colleagues—the provisions for dissolution of civil partnerships are based too closely on existing divorce law. I recognise that that is a controversial view and that many members, both within and outside the gay and lesbian community, would not agree with me. I regret that Parts 1 and 2 of the Family Law Act 1996, which would have made the breakdown of marriage the sole ground for divorce without having to establish fault, were never implemented.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, described divorce as expensive and painful. That is all too true. Removing the need for proof of fault would have made it less expensive and less painful. That provision cannot be applied to marriage in this Bill, but the Bill should have followed the grounds for dissolution in the 1996 Act, which represents in my view an advance on the existing divorce law. Many of those who opposed the 1996 Act provisions did so on religious grounds and would not recognise civil partnerships as having an equivalent validity to begin with and would therefore be unlikely to object to making the dissolution of civil partnerships a simpler matter. I should be interested to know views on that issue both within and outside your Lordships' House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party, said that pension and tax benefits should be extended not only to those who have a sexual relationship but to members of family and friends living together for purposes of care and companionship and that they too should be covered by

397
the Bill. I cannot agree with that view. There is a case for some form of tax relief and pension benefits for other relationships, but that is another issue and not the issue for the Bill. Tax and pension rights changes are consequential on the Civil Partnership Bill and are not its main purpose.
The purpose of the Bill is to give same-sex couples—who will normally, although, as in the case of marriage, not invariably, be people who are having or have had a long-term sexual relationship—the right to legal and public recognition of their status. That is the issue to which the Bill should be confined.
Financial issues are important to the Bill. Some aspects are either undefined or defective. The effect on tax law is uncertain because it has been left to a future Finance Act. I recognise that it is unlikely to be practicable to make changes in the current Finance Bill. The normal Treasury principle is that the tax law would not be changed until the Bill was enacted and not on the basis of provisions that were merely prospective. If the Government's intention is, as I assume, to treat civil partners in a similar way to spouses for tax purposes, it should be possible for them to make a statement now to that effect. That would clarify matters and help us.
I also hope that the Government will undertake—assuming that they are still in office—to include the necessary legislation in the Finance Act 2005. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to bring the Bill into force before the necessary tax changes have been enacted so that the right to enter into a civil partnership and the consequential tax changes will come into effect simultaneously. That means that even if the changes are in the 2005 Bill, the earliest date for commencement that I can imagine would be in October 2005. Any further delay would put the commencement off further, which would be deeply unfortunate.
Pension issues have given rise to some concern. I shall not go into great detail, because that is a matter for later stages, but I will point out the major issues. Contracted out pension schemes arc now required to make provision for the surviving spouse of a pensioner. The amount of benefit received by the surviving spouse is not dependent on the date of the marriage. But in the case of a civil partnership the survivor's benefit will be paid but based only on the period of pensionable service after the commencement of the Bill in the case of the defined benefits scheme and only on contributions made after the commencement of the Bill in a defined contributions scheme.
That means that if a male employee marries in a conventional marriage shortly after the Bill's commencement, his widow will receive the full spouse's pension provided for by existing pensions legislation. But if that male employee enters into a civil partnership on the same date, the surviving partner is likely to receive much less. We believe that that is unfair, especially as the pensions of married employees have effectively been subsidised by the unmarried in the past. Of course a significant proportion of those who are not married are gay or lesbian.
The main beneficiary of that provision will be the Government, because some 80 per cent of private sector schemes provide already for payment in some
398
circumstances to a surviving unmarried partner of either sex and will have calculated their necessary pension funding on that basis; whereas only a tiny proportion of public service schemes provide similar benefits.
The second point we wish to raise on pensions is that we believe that there should be a general obligation extending to non-contracted out schemes and to non-protected rights under contracted out schemes to provide the same benefits for surviving civil partners as provided by the scheme for surviving spouses.
There remain some more limited issues, which we shall raise in Committee, but in principle, as I said in opening, we extend a warm welcome to the Bill. Your Lordships' House recently passed the Gender Recognition Bill, which affects perhaps some 5,000 people in the United Kingdom. The number of gay and lesbian people who will benefit from this Bill in the United Kingdom must run into hundreds of thousands, at least. This Bill will make life better for those people. It is a Bill that would have been unthinkable 40 or 50 years ago; now we believe that it is a Bill whose time has come.
12.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I, too, very much welcome the Bill. More important than my personal view, however, is the fact that the Church of England, through its official pronouncements, has recognised that at the moment same-sex partnerships are treated very unfairly in a number of ways and that this Bill will rectify a range of injustices in relation to inheritance, pensions, hospital visiting rights and so on.
The official view of the Church of England on this issue can be taken from two sources. The first source is a motion of the General Synod, which voted, first, strongly to reaffirm that marriage is central to the stability and health of human society and warrants a unique place in the law of this country, and, secondly, to recognise that there are issues of hardship and vulnerability for people whose relationships are not based on marriage, which need to be addressed by the creation of new legal rights. That motion was passed by 248 to 27 votes.
The second source is the response of the Archbishop's Council to the Government's consultation document on civil partnership. While reiterating the central place of marriage and the need to enshrine its uniqueness in law, the response went on to say:
"We support the Government's wish to encourage long-term stable relationships as being more in the interests of society as a whole than a culture of transient or promiscuous relationships. Fair treatment for such relationships within a framework of legal rights and safeguards may well help to promote this objective. We also endorse the Government's intention to reinstate the rights of individuals within same-sex relationships in relation to such matters as protection from domestic violence, the registration of a death and inheritance matters, including tenancy succession. The law no longer reflects current social patterns and needs amendment to remedy injustice".
There we can see very strong support from the official announcements of the Church of England to rectify a range of unfair anomalies.

399
The Government, in paragraph 1.3 of their consultation document, said:
"It is a matter of public record that the Government has no plans to introduce same-sex marriage".
Nevertheless, it is a concern to some in the Churches that the legislation enshrined in the Bill parallels that for marriage at almost every point. There is an ambiguity here that some find worrying, and there are fears that the Bill could undermine the institution of marriage and its special place in the law of this country.
I state those views because they are widely shared in Church circles, and the Government will need to address them. However, I do not myself share them. Properly understood, I believe that this Bill, which makes a place in law for committed partnerships, could strengthen rather than undermine the Christian understanding of marriage. I was very glad to hear the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that in her view and the view of her party, in no way does the Bill denigrate or downgrade marriage.
I shall say briefly why, from a Christian point of view, I believe that to be the case. God's will is human flourishing. On a Christian understanding, that is most likely to come about in so far as we reflect the undeviating divine faithfulness towards us. So it is that the Church has always seen in the institution of marriage, the love of a husband and wife, a reflection of the totally committed, faithful love of God for humanity.
We know that, as a result of major social changes, the institution of marriage is under very great strain today. Society is characterised by short-term relationships and promiscuity. Clearly, the Church has failed to communicate its sublime vision of faithful loving human relationships as reflecting the divine love; or our conviction that that is what leads to human flourishing both for society and individuals. If the prime responsibility of the Church today is to communicate something of that vision, the possibility of fully committed, faithful same-sex relationships, or covenanted partnerships, will, I believe, strengthen rather than undermine what is at the heart of the Christian faith. as it is reflected in the marriage covenant.
In relation to that point, however, I have one or two questions to raise about the Bill. The first involves Clauses 2 and 6(1)(b), relating to England and Wales, and Clause 89. relating to Scotland. Those clauses would statutorily prevent registration taking place in any premises designed or mainly used for religious purposes or, in Scotland, regarded as a "place of reverence".
That is unsatisfactory for two reasons. First, it infringes the proper freedom of religious authorities to control such premises. As a matter of principle, it is for those authorities and not for the state to decide whether or not their premises should be available to be used for registration purposes—unless there is some overriding national interest, which is very difficult to identify on this issue. Secondly, the ban would deny
400
some couples the possibility of a religious celebration in close proximity to a civil registration, which they may see as a commitment with a religious dimension. For example, they may want to have a civil registration in a church hall and then to move on afterwards to a religious ceremony in a church. Of course, that is not allowed in the Church of England and some other Christian denominations. But there may very well be religious bodies which would not only permit but welcome such a development, and it would be quite wrong to preclude them from having such a ceremony in proximity to a church hall, for example.
My other concern with the Bill is the fact that when the partnership is registered there is no indication of what it is that the couple are committing themselves to. There is no specified wording. There is also no definition of a "civil partnership" contained within the Bill. I link that with another concern that I have, not with this Bill as such, but with what seems to be the Government's proposal in relation to civil marriage—that it will be up to the couple themselves to decide what form of words is used at their civil ceremony. I refer to the Government's document, Civil Registration: Delivering vital change, paragraph 3.4.74 on page 40. I believe that in a civil marriage it is crucial that there is an agreed form of words, making it quite clear that the couple are committing themselves to one another for life, through all the ups and downs of human existence—as the prayer book puts it,
"for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health".
Similarly, I would like to see the registration of a civil partnership involving not only a written statement that such a partnership now exists, but some verbal understanding that this is a commitment of two human beings to one another through all the vicissitudes of human existence. I believe that that conforms to the deepest desires and longings of those people who do in fact commit themselves to one another in such a relationship, even though, until this Bill becomes law, there is no way in which their commitment to one another can be legally recognised.
In short, I believe that we need to ensure that in the law of this country, marriage itself is understood as it always has been in both its civil and religious form, as a commitment of two people to one another to the exclusion of all others, through all the ups and downs of human existence, for life. I would also like to see some reflection of that, in non-religious terms, in the understanding of what two people are committing themselves to when they enter into and register their civil partnership.
As I said, I very warmly welcome this Bill. There are some aspects of it, as I have indicated, that a number of Christians will be uneasy with. However, my own conviction is that, properly understood, this Bill could very well support and strengthen the institution of marriage in our society, rather than weaken it.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on introducing this important Bill, which will have a profound effect on

401
the lives of many same-sex couples who choose to enter into civil partnerships. It has been very encouraging that, so far, all the speakers have supported the principle of the Bill. I also believe that it is right that the Bill should start its progress in your Lordships' House, following the principles of equity and dignity that were enshrined in the Private Member's Bill promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill; it is a great pity that he cannot be with us today.
There is no question that the law has failed to keep pace with changing social patterns in today's society. The Bill, by giving same-sex couples legal recognition for the first time, goes a long way in remedying many of the injustices that today's society imposes on them. But that legal recognition has taken 50 years to achieve. The timing of the Bill corresponds to the 50th anniversary of the setting up of the Wolfenden committee by the then Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe. Its report recommended the decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour in private between consenting adults. That was a milestone decision. It was put into legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, some 10 years later. During that time we saw the Lord Chamberlain's ban on plays with homosexual themes lifted, allowing representation in theatre and cinema. But, regrettably, reaction to these and other changes and the growing strength of the gay movement resulted in the introduction in 1988 of the iniquitous Section 28.
Since then, however, the age of consent has been reduced first to 18 and then equalised at 16, gay couples now have the right to adopt and Section 28 is no more. I make these points because it is important to understand that it has taken half a century for Britain to move from being a state that gaoled gay people to one that recognises that there can be love, respect and commitment in gay relationships.
The end of this month sees the fifth anniversary of the bombing of the "Admiral Duncan" pub. So while many of us celebrate this legislation, we must also be aware that there is a cultural battle to win and that homophobic bullying and abuse still takes place. This raises the question of the possible reluctance of some gay couples to be identified and to take the opportunity to enter into civil partnerships for fear of bullying and abuse. In supporting this legislation, I think that it is important that its provisions are available to all who choose to take advantage of them and that we put no barriers in their way.
The briefing from Christian Voice implies that this Bill is all about rights with little about responsibilities. Surely it a key responsibility of all couples, whether same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples, to care for each other and to provide reasonable maintenance for partners and for the children of the family. That is exactly what the Bill does. It is then surely right that with those responsibilities a partner should have the right to benefit from a dead partner's pension, to be recognised under inheritance and intestacy rules, to gain parental responsibility for each other's children, to have visiting rights in hospitals and to attend a partner's funeral.
402
The Bill addresses many of the inequalities that I have outlined but I have two specific queries. First, can the Minister confirm that the current benefits available to a bereaved spouse will also be available to a bereaved civil partner? The secondly question is about pensions, which has been raised by other noble Lords. There is clear discrimination in the Bill as it provides survivor pensions for same-sex partners in public sector schemes only from the date of their partnership registration. A married couple may be married for only a day but their entire careers are taken into account. I know that this and many other details will be discussed as the Bill progresses through Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford were right to say that the Bill does not undermine marriage, although one must be aware of, and consider sympathetically, the different views that exist. But now for the first time same-sex couples have a way of acknowledging their relationships and establishing welcome stability in those relationships. I think the position is simply summed up in a quote I read in a Scottish newspaper that said:
"I don't think that right-minded people believe that Jim and Ken in No. 13, in a civil partnership, will undermine the marriage of June and Dave at No. 34",
and that is absolutely right.
A further criticism of the Bill is that it does not include cohabiting heterosexual couples, as we heard. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, I think that that is right. I was pleased to see that that view is supported by the Solicitors' Family Law Association. I appreciate the Minister explaining why the Bill concentrates on same-sex couples only. But there must be concern that too many cohabiting couples believe that there is such a thing as common law marriage. I must plead ignorance because it is not that many years ago when I believed that there was such a thing. The British Social Attitudes survey in 2000 showed that 59 per cent of cohabitees mistakenly thought that there was some form of common law marriage that gave them rights similar to those enjoyed by husbands and wives. This misconception makes them extremely vulnerable when the relationship ends. This misconception has perpetuated in spite of common law marriage being abandoned in 1753.
I believe that there is an urgent need for reform and I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Department of Constitutional Affairs is examining this issue. It would be helpful if, at some point during the course of the Bill, we could be told what progress has been made by the department in order to ensure that cohabiting couples have the necessary protections for their future.
There has been great concentration on the financial aspects of the Bill. They are important, but for me the Bill is about justice, equality, security and. most importantly, dignity: the dignity of two people who want a caring, sharing, long-term relationship. In our briefings many instances have been cited of where that dignity has not existed. I want to keep dignity as my theme and to mention one particular case, which is known to me personally and which typifies the indignity, heartbreak and humiliation that can be

403
suffered. A gay couple in Yorkshire had been together for over 40 years and both partners were in their 70s. The union was never accepted by the family of the elder partner. On his admission to hospital with cancer, his lifelong partner was denied visiting rights and heard about his declining health and ultimate death from friends. The family refused his request to attend the funeral and the ultimate humiliation was being evicted from their joint home with no keepsakes and only his memories of their happy years together. I cannot think of any worse treatment of an old man who had devoted his life to his partner.
This legislation is too late for him but what happened to him will be prevented for others. I end with a quote from Lord Justice Ward who said in the Court of Appeal that:
"to distinguish between same-sex and opposite sex-couples proclaims … that society judges their relationship to be less worthy than the relationship between members of the opposite sex. The fundamental human dignity of the same-sex couple is severely and palpably affected by that distinction".
This Bill removes that distinction and restores their dignity.
12.38 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the public will struggle to understand how it is that the Government can say that they are opposed to same-sex marriage and at the same time bring forward this Bill. I realise that I am probably in a very small minority of noble Lords who are going to oppose the Bill. I have already spoken to the Minister and told her. She understands and we both understand each other's position.
The Government have stated many times, even in recent months when they knew that the Bill was about to be introduced, that they do not intend to legalise same-sex marriage. Indeed the Minister repeated that today. At Second Reading of the Gender Recognition Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said so, and at Report he said so and in response to a Question on 11 February this year he also said so. At that time he said:
"The concept of same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms, which is why our position is utterly clear: we are against it, and do not intend to promote it or allow it to take place".—[Official Report, 11/02/04; col. 1094–95.]
This is clearly meant to be government policy. The Government's consultation document on civil partnerships said:
"It is a matter of public record that the Government has no plans to introduce same-sex marriage".
So apparently we are all agreed. Only gay rights groups want gay marriage. The rest of us are opposed to it.
There is just one problem: despite what has been said already in this debate, I firmly believe that this Bill creates gay marriage. This is a gay marriage Bill. The Government may call it civil partnership but in reality it is a form of marriage for same-sex couples. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said that he would wish the same wording to be used introducing the relationship between same-sex people as is used in marriage.
404
A civil partnership can only take place between two people of the same sex who are not already married. It must be solemnised in front of a registrar in the presence of two witnesses, exactly like marriage. It will entitle the parties to all of the legal and welfare rights of a married couple. For example, civil partnerships will mean exemption from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. As my noble friend, Lady Wilcox says, the necessary changes will be made in the first available Finance Bill, which seems rather strange. A civil partnership can only be ended by a court order on the same grounds as divorce.
In the other place, the Government have admitted that they believe all the "significant rights and responsibilities" have been addressed to bring them into line with married couples—that is from House of Commons Hansard on 20 October 2003, cols. 491–492. The Explanatory Notes are even more telling—Paragraph 703 makes it clear:
"The procedures for civil partnership registration in England and Wales are modelled on the proposed procedures for civil marriages outlined in the public consultation document … published by the Office of National Statistics, and the procedures for dissolution, annulment and financial provision on dissolution are modelled on the arrangements for bringing a marriage to an end".
The Government may deny this, but I am sure that the man in the street will see this as being a gay marriage. The Government's friends and the media generally seem to call it that. The Guardian on 30 June called civil partnership:
"legal marriage in all but name".
The legal profession is under no illusions either. The leading law journal, the Lawyer, states:
"The extent of the proposals raises the question as to why the Government did not just extend the right to marry to same-sex couples. The answer must be that to do so would be too controversial. By effectively achieving the same result under a different name, the Government has so far managed to avoid a public backlash.".
Even the Labour Party's own website regards this as a form of marriage. The party enthusiasts who run the site, boasting about the Bill, illustrated it with a photograph of the Bill covered with confetti.
So let there be no mistake—this is a gay marriage Bill in all but name. I believe it undermines marriage, despite what the Minister said this morning—and I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness. That matters because, as the Government state, marriage is,
"the surest foundation for raising children".
Indeed, in paragraph 703 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, this is cited as the very reason why heterosexual cohabitees will not be able to enter into a civil partnership. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, also made that point. I believe that is the only thing in this whole argument that the Government have got right. Heterosexual couples can marry at any time, but they choose not to.
The fact that marriage is so important is sufficient reason to oppose this Bill. The Bill sends out the message that marriage—as the fundamental foundation for raising children—can be equated to a homosexual relationship. Marriage is profoundly undermined by this Bill.

405
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester is sorry he cannot be with us today, but I discussed this Bill with him, and he pointed out that nowhere does it specifically define the nature of the commitment into which people are entering. At 11.30 today, I also received a copy of a statement from the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, in which it said:
"We accept that significant problems are faced by people in a range of relationships, including both same-sex couples (those affected by the Bill) and those in relationships that are not of a sexual nature, such as devoted brothers and sisters. However, we believe these problems which are essentially associated with finance and property matters could be remedied by legal changes other than the introduction of formal civil partnerships which, in the case of same-sex couples, is likely to be seen as a form of same-sex marriage with almost all the same rights as marriage itself."
Although I may be alone in this House, I do not think I am alone outside.
Why do I say civil partnership is like marriage? It is because, exactly as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, registration takes place in front of two witnesses. They are required to wait 15 days, they have to be over 16 and—except in Scotland—they require parental consent if they are under 18.
Like marriage, those within the prohibited degrees of relationship by consanguinity or affinity are not able to enter. Like marriage, the relationship will have a legal status. No one in an existing marriage or civil partnership will be able to enter into a partnership until the previous relationship is legally dissolved. It is just a mirror image. Like marriage, during the existence of the legal relationship, the two partners will be treated jointly for income-related benefits and for state pensions, and they will be able to gain parental responsibility for each other's children. They will also be recognised for immigration purposes.
Like marriage, civil partnerships can only be ended by a court order, which is granted on the same grounds as most divorces: irretrievable breakdown. Like marriage, on dissolution, the courts will consider arrangements for property division, residence arrangements and contact arrangements with children. Like marriage, on the death of one partner, the other will have the rights to register the death and to claim a survivor pension, eligibility for bereavement benefits and for compensation for fatal accidents or criminal injuries. Also, they will have recognition under inheritance and intestacy rules to tenancy succession rights—real problems for many. The Bill may not use the word "marriage", but the Government have gone to great lengths to ensure that, in almost every other way, it is identical.
It is just wrong to create a parody of marriage for homosexual couples. It is unfair in other directions. Governments always have to decide what rights and privileges are given to non-married households. Clearly where there are children, the state has to intervene to protect their interests. However, when it comes to adult relationships the state has, until comparatively recently, privileged the status of marriage.
If we are to extend all the rights of married couples to others, what should be the criteria? Should they be extended only to those in homosexual relationships?
406
What of the millions of friends, relatives, brothers and sisters, daughters and mothers who share a house? This has already been referred to several times today. What of the disabled people who share a house with a friend who cares for them?
I have no doubt that there are cases where gay couples have experienced difficulties because their relationship is not recognised by law, and I have great sympathy. We have already heard of some cases. The advocates of this Bill say that it is needed to help people who are in genuine difficulties. But there are many such people in equally difficult, heart-wrenching situations who will not be helped by this Bill. In fact, these people will become increasingly marginalised because of it. We will have two categories of people who have the sort of rights I have mentioned: those who are married and those who are in civil partnerships as same-sex couples.
The theoretical examples are known to everybody: people who move into a flat to care for a friend with a long-term ill illness; a daughter giving up a well-paid job to care for a sick mother; or two sisters who never marry, living together all their lives in the home inherited from their parents. All of these people, when it comes to the death of one or other of them, will face a swingeing inheritance tax bill, which will in most cases lead to increasing dependency on the state by those people. These sorts of cases are appalling and something has to be done about them.
When it comes to inheritance tax, some of us feel the whole thing is wrong. It is outrageous to punish people for having the audacity to escape the reach of the taxman by dying. Every other tax has already been paid on the estate of that person: income tax, capital gains tax, VAT. Yet, if the value of their estate exceeds the inheritance tax threshold, they are taxed again on the same property simply because it was in their possession when they stopped breathing.
Inheritance tax merely punishes families and other beneficiaries, and does a great deal to hinder the continuation of family-owned businesses. It results in many people losing homes and property which have been in their family for years. My noble friend Lady Wilcox tangentially made the point about small and medium-sized businesses asked to incorporate, and subsequently hit by a swingeing tax bill. This will have exactly the same effect.
In addition, all governments of whatever persuasion have encouraged people to save. The savings ratio has long been regarded as an important measure of the underlying health of the economy. Investment in housing has been encouraged—rightly, as it gives a bulwark against dependency once the earnings period of individuals is ended. I have already referred to that and said that, if the Bill goes ahead without looking at the other people that I have mentioned, there will be greater dependency. Is that right? Is it fair? Is it just?
The Treasury records inheritance tax revenue for 2002–03 as £2.4 billion. That actually represents approximately 0.6 per cent of the total tax take. I could make all sorts of references to people who have done in-depth studies of the effects of inheritance tax, the

407
tax yields and the cost but, in the interests of time, I shall not go through them. However, we must recognise that it is disproportionately heavy for some people. The obvious solution to all the problems caused by inheritance tax is to abolish it altogether. An inheritance tax abolition Bill would be much more popular and benefit many more people than the Civil Partnership Bill, and would prevent hardship for many more people.
If the Bill is to become law, it must be amended radically to benefit far more people. There are many non-sexual relationships where people depend on each other for companionship, as has already been dealt with, and share the costs of living, which has not. It is obviously cheaper for two to live together than separately. The Bill does nothing for such people, however. According to the 2001 census, fewer than 80,000 people live as part of a same-sex couple, whereas 4.6 million people live together in non-sexual co-dependent relationships—almost 60 times as many.
I hate taking issue with the Minister, but the government estimates, in an answer to my noble friend Lady Carnegy, who is no longer in her place, are that between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of homosexual couples would want to get involved in civil partnerships. According to footnote 3 on page 108 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, the figure is 3.3 per cent. That means that 96.7 per cent of homosexuals in the UK will not register a civil partnership, in the Government's own estimation. How can we justify spending all this parliamentary time on a Bill containing 196 clauses and 22 schedules, lasting 258 pages, which will take eight days in Grand Committee?
The Bill is hardly modest. We are fundamentally rewriting the entire basis of our family law, pension law and taxation law. The reason for doing so is not to benefit deserving people in situations that they cannot get out of, in many cases. If it were, house sharers not in a sexual relationship would be included. The Bill is not inclusive; it creates yet more fragmentation and discrimination. It is wrong.
The Bill opens a Pandora's box.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, just before we came into the Chamber, the noble Baroness reminded me that, even though I did not and would not agree with her, I should keep to nine minutes. She has taken 15 minutes, which is a long time over the ration.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I apologise. I mentioned to the Minister before I came into the Chamber that I would obviously be in a very small minority and felt that I had to put the opposing case. I am sorry to have taken so much time.
Some might say that the Bill is only small and introduces only a small change. A rudder is only a small part of a ship but, like a rudder, the Bill will steer the direction of public policy into completely uncharted waters. I will return to those issues and many more in Grand Committee.
12.54 p.m.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I want to say how much I welcome the Bill. After I joined this House, the first major debate in which I participated was on 13 April 1999. I stood up at 10.29 p.m. to make my first major speech in the House. The subject was the equalisation of the age of consent. I shall let the Minister deal with her phone; I know that she wishes to undermine my arguments.
I sat through many speeches about gay men and women—noble Lords may recall some of them—referring to us as sick, abnormal, unnatural and ruined. I remember starting my speech. Bravely —some would say naively—I stood up and said that I was 34 and proud to be gay, and that I was gay when I was 24, 20, 19, 18, 17 and 16. Hooked around me, and I felt very vulnerable—but there was also a huge warmth in the House that night from colleagues all around it. I ended my speech by saying:
"In tonight's vote I should like your Lordships to speak out for me and millions like me, not because you agree or disagree",
with who I am or,
"because you approve or disapprove",
of what I do,
"but because if you do not protect me in this House you protect no one".—[Official Report, 13/4/99; col. 738.]
We lost that vote, and I walked away from this Chamber feeling pretty wretched.
That was almost five years ago to the day. We have travelled such a long way since then. We have seen the equalisation of the age of consent, albeit with the use of the Parliament Act. We have seen anti-discrimination laws implemented in the workplace and in the military. We have seen same-sex couples given the opportunity to help children through adoption. Only a short time ago, we saw the repeal of Section 28. I am most proud that, since the equalisation of the age of consent, all those measures went through with your Lordships' consent and not with the use of the Parliament Act. I want to pay tribute to this House, because it has undergone a remarkable journey, and I believe that many young people will look at this place as being more relevant due to the steps that it has taken over the past few years.
There has also been a remarkable journey for the party in opposition. Michael Howard, only a few months ago in his "British dream" speech, said that he would support the Civil Partnership Bill and believed that it made important reforms. The noble Baroness on that party's Front Bench also told us that he talked about removing the barriers that the state puts up to stop civil partnerships. It is also remarkable when the Daily Telegraph, on 25 November last year in an editorial, said that,
"there is no good reason why a homosexual man or woman bereaved after a decade of faithful union should face the additional burden of selling a home to meet death duties when a partner dies".
That point was amply illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton. The editorial went on to give its unequivocal support for civil partnerships.

409
I cannot tell the House what the Bill will mean to many gay men and women, in terms of the relief that at last we might find some kind of recognition by the state, and therefore society as a whole, for our relationships. We will no longer have to think of our loved ones being turned out of the houses that they share with us. We will no longer have to suffer the indignity of seeing ourselves removed from hospitals, while relatives who have barely been on speaking terms with our partners make decisions over medical treatment. This is truly a good Bill.
I cannot say whether or not I will be a beneficiary of this Bill—after all, a boy does like to be asked.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Alli: My Lords, I have received no such proposal. However, I have been with my partner for 22 years. In fact, next month we celebrate 23 years together. This legislation might allow us to benefit from what straight couples tip and down the country can do. We can if we wish register our union, not because of the fiscal benefits, important as they may be, and not only because of the protections that we wish to give each other, but because we want our partnership recognised by the state and elevated above friendships or close acquaintances. We would do it because we loved each other and we wanted, as the right reverend Prelate stressed, a lifelong relationship. The Bill is about that, recognising the special different status of committed, loving same-sex relationships and giving them legal protection on that basis.
There will still be those who will oppose the Bill. They will talk about being sympathetic and, indeed, claim not to be homophobic. We know who they are—they have voted against every piece of legislation that I have listed. They will abuse two legitimate concerns to undermine the Bill. The first notion, of course, is that it will undermine marriage. In countries where there is gay marriage or civil partnership, there is certainly no evidence to suggest that it does that. In fact, there is evidence to suggest the reverse. More importantly—I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford—it seems illogical to argue that something that encourages stability in society should somehow undermine marriage.
The second argument to be deployed will be, "We're very pleased to give these rights to the gay community, but we should see a way of extending beyond the gay community to others—to sisters, to brothers or to a carer. Should they not be granted the same protection?" That is a seductive argument, but it is not an issue for this Bill. Those are legitimate questions for the Government, but this Bill is not the place for those arguments. They should be considered perhaps in the context of the family and domestic partnership Bill. So should issues relating to cohabiting couples, on which I know that the Government are currently working. I was pleased to hear from the Minister of the work that is being done in the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
I look forward to the Committee stage. I thank the Minister for the work that she has done on this Bill. I thank my colleagues in the Government who have
410
produced a first-class Bill. Many in the gay community have waited literally a lifetime to see this Bill come forward and I hope that it will be enacted soon.
1.1 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, it gives me real pleasure to take part in this debate today and to support the Bill in principle. I begin by expressing my sadness that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was unable to be here today for very good reasons. I pay tribute to him, because he has championed civil partnerships. It is probably because of him in large part that we are where we are today.
The noble Lord gave us, by way of his Private Member's Bill in January 2002, the opportunity to consider in this House both the principle and the practicalities of civil partnerships. In order to avoid doubt, particularly outside your Lordships' House, I want to make it clear that I worked closely with colleagues in the shadow Cabinet at that time, including our leader, Michael Howard, to consider the Conservative Party view. Even then—two years ago—our view was very positive. While we did not want to see the institution of marriage undermined, I stated then, with the approval of the shadow Cabinet, that in the case of those who cannot marry, we should confront any form of discrimination that compromised mutual respect and commitment within a stable and loving relationship for no good reason. I am irritated that the media, in particular, and even some colleagues in another place, are treating this subject as a new idea, given that your Lordships considered it all that time ago. We clearly need to improve the PR of your Lordships' House.
I reiterate what my colleagues and I said then about marriage, because it is still right now. Many one-parent families, as well as cohabiting couples, bring up children incredibly well and create homes as loving and as stable as those offered by married couples. However, figures show that the commitment of marriage increases stability. As the Office for National Statistics has stated, recent research has shown that children born to cohabiting couples are twice as likely to see their parents separate as children born within marriage. Our support for marriage therefore stems not from dogma or religious values. Indeed, while many of us marry in religious ceremonies which combine a civic and spiritual bond, more than half of us choose to marry in register offices with no religious content in the ceremony. In any event, many would argue that politicians should not preach nor pry into the private reasons for entering a marriage. Simply put, our support for marriage stems from the increasingly available evidence that marriage has significant benefits for present and future generations.
However, the Bill provides us with the opportunity seriously to consider the rights of those who are not able to marry—those couples who do not have the choice; that is, same-sex couples who have a long-term, stable relationship. There is no doubt that those couples face a number of real problems in their daily lives—problems that need to be addressed in a sensitive, respectful and practical way. The Bill clearly seeks to overcome

411
statutory discrimination against those who want to make the commitment to share rights and responsibilities within a coherent framework.
In addition to those economic rights and responsibilities within a union, the Bill addresses issues that test the emotional strength and heart of a relationship. Those include the right of action in respect of a fatal accident; the right to register the death of a partner; and the provision for health and welfare of a partner without capacity to act. If a couple are in a stable relationship and unable to marry, it must be right to allow them the dignity of acting on each other's behalf in the same way as a married couple.
I agree with those noble Lords who said that the Bill will not undermine marriage. Indeed, considerable evidence from similar legislation in other countries shows that, far from undermining marriage, quite the opposite is the case. I remember that I raised that concern during the debate on the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but he was able to provide us with considerable information on that evidence. More recent evidence from Denmark, Norway and other countries shows that that kind of framework can assist in supporting the institution of marriage.
One of my main concerns about this Bill and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is their narrow remit. They confer rights and responsibilities only on same-sex couples. However, after much consideration of this important issue—most, if not all, noble Lords have referred to it today—I have concluded that it is a subject for another Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, on that; it is a separate issue.
Many different kinds of relationship need similar support. I discussed them at some length yesterday with Ben Summerskill of Stonewall. Stonewall has stated, quite clearly, that it has,
"sympathy with people whose lives are entwined but who are not in a sexual relationship. This is particularly the case in relation to a shared home and inheritance tax".
However, I agree with Stonewall when it states that,
"we strongly believe that the package of rights and responsibilities contained within the Bill, when taken as a whole, are unsuitable for people such as siblings or carers. Rules governing issues such as formation and dissolution together with the possibility of more than two people being involved (e.g. three siblings)"—
how would one legislate for that situation through this Bill?—
"mean that the issue should be considered separately".
I am pleased to learn that the Government are already looking at that issue. My noble friend Lady Wilcox expressed the Conservative Party view that we should look at those areas in this Bill. In that case, I look forward to considering any amendments that we put forward to confront that difficult problem, but it will be hard to convince me that it will work in the framework of this Bill.
412
On unmarried heterosexual couples, I have already said that we support the institution of marriage and that the Bill does not undermine it. However, unmarried heterosexual couples have the choice to marry. There is an important job to be done—I say it without wishing to be patronizing—in educating and informing the ever-growing number of heterosexual couples who choose not to marry and who think that they have "common law rights", but that is for another time. Indeed, the Minister referred to the myth of common law marriage. Many of those couples believe that they enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as those who are married just because they cohabit. That is particularly important when it comes to children of cohabiting couples. I know that this is a debate not for this Bill but for another day. However, I entirely agree with the Solicitors' Family Law Association when it states:
"We strongly believe that urgent reform is needed to the law on cohabitation to meet the needs of the growing numbers of unmarried couples who cannot, or do not want to … formalise their relationships by marriage and also to protect the partners in same-sex relationships who do not register a civil partnership".
That latter point may be less of a priority because under the Bill there will be a choice for same-sex couples to enter a partnership.
In conclusion, in April 2000, I wrote a paper on family policy for discussion and debate among Conservative Party members throughout the United Kingdom. In that paper, I posed the questions:
"Should the family, for the purposes of family law, taxes and benefits, also include people, whether of the same gender or not, who choose to live together in a stable relationship and share in the home economy?".
This might include, say, two sisters who choose to cohabit together with an elderly relative in their care or a couple in a homosexual relationship. One example I gave of a radical approach to these questions was the French institution, PACS; the Pacte Civil de Solidarité. This allows two people to register their union and then three years later to enjoy some of the legal benefits of marriage.
This system is not an alternative or an equivalent to marriage, it simply enables people who have relied on one another through life to share rights to their property and assets. Feedback from the paper I wrote across the United Kingdom found among those in the Conservative Party a genuine and widespread will further to consider these matters in a positive way.
So four years on, I am pleased that we are here having this Second Reading debate on the Bill in your Lordships' House. While its details require further consideration and debate, I am proud to support its principle. I agree with what the right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said about the need to support, in any which way we can, commitment and stability in a loving relationship.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that 40 or 50 years ago such a Bill could not have been even thought of. Four years ago, when I wrote that paper about the possibility of rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples for the Conservative Party, I was incredibly nervous about this going out to the party at large. We have come a long way and I am very proud of that.
1.12 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I do not welcome the Bill. I strongly sympathise with some of the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady O'Cathain.
I should not have the objections I do to giving the rights which the Bill gives to same-sex partners if common decency had prevailed in giving some of those rights also to same-sex persons such as mother and daughter, or two sisters, or two brothers, or an aunt and niece and to opposite sex persons such as a brother and sister, or a father and daughter who set up house together and where, for example, great hardship may be caused when on the death of one the other has to pay death duties or inheritance tax, whatever it is now called.
Why should gays and lesbians be cushioned against those hardships and them not? The Government have gone out of their way in Schedule 1 to this long and complicated Bill to make absolutely certain that only same-sex couples who are outwith their list of prohibited degrees of kindred and affinity can benefit from it.
Perhaps the Government think there are more gay and lesbian votes for them in the next election than from those in the categories I have mentioned. And no doubt the Treasury is less than enthusiastic about postponing the receipt of any more inheritance tax or any other sort of tax. I think the Government are paying tribute to the great god of expediency, the god of governments, whose worship drove my father from the Conservative Benches on to the Cross Benches nearly hall a century ago.
This is a bad Bill and should be drastically amended along the lines I have suggested, if it is possible to do so. If it is not possible, which may be the case, the Government should lose no time in introducing legislation to effect the changes I have mentioned.
1.15 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, the long awaited Civil Partnership Bill will bring great happiness to those same-sex partners who have wondered if they will live long enough to obtain what they see as their right. Noble Lords will have received a large post-bag from such people and few letters they get will be more reasonable, more level-headed and, I think I may say, more moving.
Several opinions from gay people were quoted in this House when the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, introduced his Private Member's Bill on this same subject two years ago. Since then, I have received many letters from gay and lesbian people living in a committed same-sex relationship writing of their anxieties and their distress. When the Bill becomes law, these will be removed, as will those of all same-sex couples who register.
Under the Bill, members of public service pension schemes will be entitled to survivor benefits for registered same-sex partners in the same way as for a widow or widower. Same-sex partners will no longer pay inheritance tax on assets passed on after death. However, as the noble
414
Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said, a man or woman in a partnership who is in a pension scheme will not be able to register his or her partnership until the Bill is enacted and their previous period of partnership will not count as part of their pensionable service. Is not the effectiveness of the Bill reduced by failing to backdate the entitlement to the beginning of the employment relationship or of the partnership relationship if later than the former? Is it not making for inequalities? A married person's pensionable service counts from the time of its commencement.
Same-sex partners will be able to act as each other's next of kin in a situation when one is seriously ill in hospital, having therefore the right to make resuscitation decisions, for instance, and when the time comes, register a partner's death. Are we to assume that once a same-sex couple have signed a document in front of a registrar and two witnesses, or some other form of public ceremony, their partnership will be officially recognised to such a degree that the hospital authorities will regard them as next of kin to each other? Will they have to produce for inspection their registration document?
A wife or husband is not required to produce their marriage licence, or in any other way prove they are next of kin in these circumstances. Will those in civil partnerships be treated in the same way? The term "next of kin" should be defined and given legal meaning. As things now stand, even after registration of a civil partnership, some devout hospital staff, on their Church's or faith's instructions, may feel obliged to disregard same-sex relationships, officially sanctioned or not.
And on this question, the fact must be recognised that a large number of gay and lesbian people are still reluctant to come out of the closet. In many areas of society and of the workplace, openly declaring one's sexual orientation is a risky business. Coming out with it may lead to verbal or even physical violence or to various hate crimes or, sometimes as bad, to becoming the butt of offensive jokes. This diffidence on the part of gay people has a particular relevance in the proposed form of civil registration. Public access to the registration may place some people at risk. Should not some measure be devised in which access to names can be kept confidential where those in the civil partnerships wish for privacy and confidentiality?
Conversely, the Bill makes no provision for those wishing to register a civil partnership having a ceremony corresponding to that of a civil marriage. In many respects, the Bill is providing something very close to a civil marriage, unwelcome though this may be to many people. One wonders if the distinction is not largely in the minds of those who drafted the Bill since the only differences seem to be that the term "spouse" is to be avoided, the concept of "bigamy" is being substituted for new "offences of perjury", and there are some pension discrepancies. Moreover, when the Bill is enacted, civil partners will not be able to be compelled to give evidence in court against each other—exactly as in marriage. The dissolution of a partnership is very like the dissolving of a marriage. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, I see no harm in this, but I would like to have the matter clarified. There is a strong emphasis in the Bill that

415
anything in the nature of a religious service should be avoided when registering. Several gay people have written to me pointing out that they would like their partnership to be recognised with more gravity and formality, and some of them asked for a religious service. Being gay does not turn someone into an atheist. Many homosexual and lesbian people are deeply religious, as we have seen in a number of instances lately, and would like to feel their commitment to each other was made in the sight of God as well as man.
The consultation paper, published in June 2003, accepts the argument from human rights that there must be some compelling reason to deny rights and duties to one form of partnership if they are awarded to another, but no adequate reason is put forward. United Kingdom law already accepts the marital status of couples from countries such as Sri Lanka and Canada, where the law supports same-sex marriage. It is surely difficult to accept some married couples and not others. Three European countries, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, have registered partnerships with similar rights and responsibilities to civil marriage, while three more, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, now have same-sex marriage. The United Kingdom will be obliged to accept these marriages to fulfil the requirements of freedom of movement within the EU. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House in what fundamental sense proposed civil partnerships will differ from civil marriage, except in that one form was designed for heterosexuals and the other for same-sex couples?
In 1836, when the Marriage Act, which let in civil marriage was debated in another place, Members were more concerned by the idea of people wandering from parish to parish to be married, a real fear of banns being dispensed with and by "dissenters"—I quote—being removed from the necessity of being married by a Church of England clergyman, than by the prospect of weddings without the benefit of clergy. To us today, all this seems antediluvian and a cause for wonder, as the general fear of same-sex unions will seem to everyone in the future.
When it becomes law, this Bill will do more for gay and lesbian people than give their unions legal status. It will help to raise their profiles in a world of predominantly mixed-sex partnerships by setting them firmly in that world and drawing them in from the fringe. Unfortunately, mixed-sex couples living together feel discriminated against, in that no civil registration partnership provision is made for them. The answer they usually receive, regardless of the fact that they may be biased against marriage on principle, is that if they want the benefits awarded to same-sex couples there is nothing to stop them marrying. But what of sisters sharing a home, as many noble Lords have pointed out, or a brother and sister, or a disabled or elderly person with an unrelated carer? Usually, in our present-day world, such people are getting on in years but are none the less anxious, rather more so, for a change in the law to provide for them. We must hope for future legislation, and not too long deferred, to redress these inequalities.
1.23 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I support this Bill, because it is really a matter of liberty. I accept the arguments put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford on the necessity for the Bill and its overarching Christian substance.
Part of the problem is that the Christian Church has been in the most appalling muddle over homosexuality ever since it was founded. The Old Testament says "do not eat lobster", "do not eat crab", and "stone adulterers to death". If we were to do so, I suspect it would have the same effect on the countryside as the Black Death. God spoke to Abraham, or so we assume, six hundred years after it is assumed to have happened. Abraham changed the spelling of his name, his wife could have children at the age of 99, and they could then go and inhabit the best piece of real estate on the Eastern Mediterranean littoral. Not unsurprisingly, Abraham said "Yippee. What's the catch?" God replied: "Chop off the end of your penis with a stone axe and those of all your 10,000 slaves as well". This is called the authority of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament accepts Lot's polygamy. Jesus was completely silent upon homosexuality. St Paul could be classed as being hung up on it. The New Testament condones slavery. The moral authority for what has been accepted for 150 years or so all started, it appears, with the great papacies, in the 11th and 12th centuries, of Gregory VI, who started to establish the discipline and the centralising attitude of the papacy over most of western Europe. He classed sodomites in the same group as Jews, heretics and lepers.
The noble and much-loved late Lord Hailsham had a story of a French friend of his who said to him:
"On sait très bien ce qui est arrivé à Sodome, mais qu'est-ce qu'on a fait à Gomorrhe alors?",
assuming that people knew what actually happened at Sodom. Well, they did not, as the Church could not make up its mind. Luther, of course, got in a terrible rage about sodomy, because he said it was all to do with celibate priests in Rome. Funnily enough, the Spanish Inquisition also burnt 150 sodomites without the benefit of strangulation as well as heretics, because it was classed as heresy. There was a wonderful Venetian journalist-editor who wrote a thundering Sun-like leader in a local newspaper in 1508, blaming the catastrophic defeat of the Venetians in some battle upon randy nuns and Venetian sodomites. So one can show that the attitude on homosexuality up until very recently was based on a series of slightly hysterical myths.
So what does this Bill really do? It arises partly because stable relationships are better than non-stable relationships, and should be encouraged, but mainly because, 10 or so years ago, the tax relationship between husband and wife changed, and now we have a desire for tax equality. I agree with my noble friend Lady O'Cathain that this Bill is concerned with death duties. There is a lovely thing in this Bill, which I had noted but had forgotten to mention. For some reason, the Biblical prohibition on close relationships is included in the Bill. Why? I cannot understand why. But I think I do. I think it is because I cannot register

417
my son as my catamite and then hand on the whole of my property to him without death duties. When I first heard of the Bill, I thought "Yippee. That is a frightfully good idea". But one cannot do that. So it is the problem of death duties which makes it even more difficult to sustain.
I welcome this Bill because I think it is civilised, but as your Lordships can see, I find quite a lot which is amusing, ironical and open to mockery about the reasons why it has arisen, and the reasons why it is actually necessary.
1.29 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, in supporting the Bill, I draw to the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the fact that Ezekiel says that the sin of Sodom and her daughters is that they,
"had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched".
It is not the sin that was often ascribed to them.
Now let thy servant depart in peace, since I see that at least one of the battles that I have fought is nearly won. I have been fighting for a provision such as this since the 1960s, when John Robinson, the former Bishop of Woolwich, and I were among the founders of the Sexual Law Reform Society.
Since then I have not given that cause the time that it deserves, but my support for the principle has never wavered, not least because I knew that it was important for "straights" to be signed up in the cause of justice. Not even the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who is no longer in his place. and who once pilloried me in public life as representing the archetype of Lust in the seven deadly sins, has ever thought of me as gay, except in the old-fashioned sense.
First, I like the name of the Bill because, as a respecter of the English language no less than as an Anglican priest, I would find it intolerable to call the unions with which we are dealing "marriages". A marriage is a very different thing.
Secondly. I suspect that, unlike most of the Bills that come to your Lordships' House these days, this one needs little amendment. I certainly would resist the suggestions made by the Mayor of London among others that the Bill should be extended to all unmarried couples regardless of sexuality. The Bill is about giving civil rights to those who have entered long-term or permanent commitments to each other, not just those who are "having it off", if noble Lords will permit the phrase. Nor, I agree with the Government, is this the Bill to regulate non-sexual home-sharers. I agree entirely that that is necessary, and I hope that the Government will provide a Bill for it shortly, but this is not the place.
The one matter that needs amendment was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. It is wrong to rule out premises used for religious services, or in Scotland "places of reverence"—I am fascinated by the difference in nomenclature—as premises for registration. On the contrary, it is important that reverence enters into the picture and that the religious authorities, not the state, decide what ceremonies they will or will not entertain. I am delighted to hear from the
418
right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford that the Bench of Bishops will take up that point. If they do, they will certainly have my support.
It is pleasant for once to make a Second Reading speech in this House under this Government for which one can give three cheers rather than the usual one and a half, and my party and I do that wholeheartedly today.
1.32 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, in a debate on 17 March in your Lordships' House I drew attention to the injustice that current law imposes on same-sex couples. I pointed out that those injustices could be put right by a civil partnerships Bill and called for its early introduction. Here we are, six weeks later, at its Second Reading. It would be churlish of me not to thank the Minister and congratulate her on her quick response and good service.
In that debate I gave an example of the discrimination and injustice suffered by a same-sex couple and how the Bill would put that right—by solving the practical problems mentioned by other noble Lords. There is no need for me to repeat those issues, as they have been most eloquently dealt with by my noble friends, most of whom are at our party meeting, which is why they are not here. I agree with other noble Lords that recognising these issues and laying down the rights, responsibilities and procedures for couples who wish to share a home, share their lives and perhaps bring up children together, will make a difference to their lives. That is to be welcomed.
I wish to emphasise one point that has not been sufficiently recognised or debated: the contribution that the Bill makes to equality. Equality across a whole range of issues is important, not only for social reasons but also because we now know that economic prosperity goes together with equality and the social cohesion that it inspires. Indeed, I think that that view of economics unites many noble Lords on these Benches, which is perhaps why we are sitting on this side and not the other.
We used to be told that a strong economy meant inequality; we now know better. We know that one of the features of a successful company is that it recognises the need for equality. That absence of discrimination and the belief in equality enables companies to build up a first-class staff and to keep them. I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, with her experience of business. did not mention that when she spoke about the economy, although she did so briefly. She knows that good companies purposely create a diverse workforce to deal with the complex supply chain on which they depend and to match the diversity of their customers. Those companies encourage a better balance between gender, ethnicity, disability, age and sexual orientation in their workforce in order to deal better with their customers and suppliers. We now know that that leads to tangible benefits. That is why commitment to equality is so important to our economy.

419
The Bill is one more small contribution to the social cohesion through equality that is central to our country's well-being and to our economy. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind, and I wish the Bill every success.
1.36 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, one never can tell how soon one will have to speak. Some noble Lords' speeches last 15 minutes and others' for two. With the ink still wet on my notes, I shall start by saying that I am relieved to see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough in his place. I shall leave it to him to address the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who, I hope, will be back in his place when the right reverend Prelate comes to speak—in around seven and a half minutes.
There is a religious dimension to this discussion and the Bill. It is one that some of us find quite clear. I approach the Bill with less enthusiasm than its warmest supporters and less revulsion than its greatest opponents—revulsion is perhaps the wrong word. I am reconciled to it, because the central issue is what is love. That is what Christianity is about; it is what life is about; and it is what makes the world turn round. In this country we are handicapped by having only one word for love, and we package many different emotions into it—we love ice cream, we love our wives, we love our country and so on.
In particular, we fail to distinguish between two sorts of love. In the authorised version St Paul reminded us that,
"the spirit lusts against the flesh and the flesh against the spirit".
Marriage embraces both; it is the paradigm that most of us consider when we look at the Bill, and to which I am sure many heterosexual couples genuinely aspire. I would not wish to obstruct the protection or encouragement of true love. It is wrong to assume that true love cannot exist between couples of the same sex and need not necessarily be expressed carnally by them. The state should not enter into that aspect of the relation between them. Those who favour love as the guiding principle of this world should try to provide an opportunity for the spirit to be active in a secure environment, not threatened by financial and social penalties, which are attracted at present to such relationships not recognised in law.
That is a cloudy way of saying that. Although I recognise the difficulties that many of my noble friends and co-religionists have with this legislation, its positive effects make it worth accepting the penalties, as we see it, of what it does negatively in its relationship to the rest of society.
Having said that, the Bill is surprising in many respects. To start with, the Children Bill, which deals with the circumstances of the entire population at one stage of their life, is 40 pages long. This Bill, as my noble friend Lady O'Cathain has demonstrated, affects 3.3 per cent of cohabiting heterosexual partnerships. If you apply national statistics to that, you get to a figure of about 5,200 people. I forget how many hundred pages the Bill is; I think it is 258 pages
420
long. We seem to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, until we look at the complexity of the matter. As my noble friend Lord Onslow, who is absent, said, the devil is in the detail.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, it was me.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it was my most distinguished noble friend on the Front Bench who said that. I do apologise entirely for making a confusion on which I believe it would be impossible for anyone else to venture.
There are also, in spite of the length of the Bill, some surprising omissions. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, and others, that it is essential that some contracting words should be there. Merely to say, "we are in a partnership", and not to say what the partnership means, is ludicrous. We have a complete motor car and no engine, as far as I can see. That must be put in, I would have thought. I hope that it will be done by the Government but, if not, I am sure that many of us will be willing to make an attempt.
The question of the exclusion of heterosexual couples of different sorts is difficult. I started looking at that issue thinking that they should be included. Then you come to specific relationships where they cannot be. Someone mentioned three sisters. What about the daughter, faithfully giving up her life to her father, as I hope no daughter of mine will have to do? They are all safely married—but I would not want my daughter to sign a contract that she was going to have to be with me until I died, in the knowledge that some wonderful, dashing knight in shining armour might come along when she was 35. There are all sorts of practical objections to doing things that way. The right place to deal with it is in taxation law. There might actually be a lot to be said for a great deal more of this Bill being dealt with in that way. That is something that can be dealt with, no doubt, in Committee.
I am glad to see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford back in his place, because he had a difficulty over the exclusion of places of religious worship, otherwise described in Scotland, for the ceremony, or celebration, of these contracts. I am sure that the exclusion is made in order to make a gesture in the direction of those who would not like this to be seen as being absolutely parallel with marriage. It does not pose the difficulty that the right reverend Prelate supposes. Only the church is excluded, so the ceremony can take place in the village hall, or the church hall, and the party can then progress to the church. Having been in one failed marriage, and now one extremely successful marriage, the blessing of a civil ceremony, which was all that was available to us at the time, is a wonderful and spiritual experience for those of the faith and should not be belittled. Therefore, I do not see any difficulty in that respect.
The one area in which I have considerable concern regarding the parallel with marriage—here I am on controversial ground—is adoption. It is wrong to present same-sex and heterosexual couples as absolutely on a level with each other for the adoption process. This is another area of legislation in which I

421
have not taken part. and I realise that there are many considerations that I have not mentioned. Prima facie, that distinction ought to be maintained.
I am anxious, after the collapse of two of the preceding speeches, not to speak too briefly. I conclude where I started. It seems to me that those of us who look at this from the point of view of Christian believers must consider whether it advances the cause of love being protected in society. We must recognise that love comes in many sorts and that we do not distinguish them in our vocabulary. I recommend that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford reads my introduction, because what I have just said does not fully explain what I mean, and I do not want to speak any longer.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he accept that I did not "collapse", as he put it, and that I merely wrote a short speech. which is the kind of speech that, on the whole, your Lordships approve of?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I entirely approve. I accept what the noble Lord said, and he allows me to conclude on a more elegant note than I just did.
1.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, I am honoured to follow the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I agree with many of the things that he said about love. I am sorry that I shall disappoint him and not take up cudgels with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
I too welcome what the Minister has called the measured response to a recognised need. It has, as she said, been shaped by consultation, including with the Church, and it offers a secular solution and does not seek to weaken the importance of marriage. That is an issue to which I shall return. I find it difficult, speaking at this point in the debate, to add much to the contributions made by many noble Lords, but particularly to that made by my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. Your Lordships will know that significant groups in the Church have given the Bill a more negative reception than he did. Without necessarily agreeing with all that they say, I want to explain a little hit why I think that they have done so.
Both the Synod, in its discussion on cohabitation, and the Archbishops' Council, in responding to the Government's consultation paper, affirmed the central importance of marriage for the stability and health of human society, but accepted that there are issues of social justice that need to be addressed in the light of the changing patterns of relationship in our society. They argued that it should be done in a way that is consistent with our continuing desire to safeguard the special position of marriage. Since the publication of the Bill, some have argued that by accepting same-sex unions in legislation that mirrors to a great extent the legal protection given to marriage, thereby creating equality in law, will at least cause confusion about the essence of marriage, and would therefore not be consistent with the desire expressed by the council and by the Government.
422
Others, as my friend the right reverend Prelate has done today, argue that because this proposed partnership is clearly not a marriage, it need not affect the status of marriage in this country. Indeed, by promoting stability, faithfulness and commitment in all relationships, it is supportive of the many principles on which marriage is based.
The Synod's motion and the Archbishops' Council endorsed two of the three principles that the then Bishop of Guildford set out in his speech two years ago in your Lordships' House in debating the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. First, he said:
"Marriage is a gift from God to the whole of creation … This gift is a benefit to all—married and single alike. Its blessings cascade down the generations".
That is a view that has been endorsed by many Members of your Lordships' House today. The Government have made it clear that they do not see the introduction of civil partnerships as undermining marriage. In the consultation paper, they recognised, as others have, the distinctive place of marriage in law, and the need to preserve it. That commitment is honoured in a number of ways in the Bill; a distinctive procedure with no specific wording; a document signed before a civil partnership registrar; without religious, or indeed any, defined ceremony. The prohibition from religious premises is again distancing it from marriage. I would take a slightly different viewpoint from that taken by my friend the right reverend Prelate.
The second principle commended by the Bishop of Guildford was that,
"where there is clear and persistent injustice and discrimination in our land those who legislate have a duty to seek ways and means of ending such unjust discrimination for the benefit of all".
He added:
"The third principle is connected with the second and is that of proportionality. How do we, in seeking to offer a good to a few, not end up undermining the greatest strength for the many?".—[Official Report, 25/1/02; col. 1721.]
In saying that, he moved us from issues of justice about which, I think, we are all agreed to matters of judgment. Many of the issues of hardship and vulnerability relating to those in non-married relationships arise because, in the past, legislators have exercised positive discrimination in favour of marriage. It is not necessarily the case that they discriminated against other relationships; they have discriminated in favour of marriage. I guess that our predecessors did so partly because they felt that they were supporting an institution—indeed, a pattern of relationship—that was beneficial to the flourishing of human beings and of society. In forming that view, they were undoubtedly influenced by a religious—indeed Christian—understanding of marriage. That still pertains, and it is good to see that, in their response to the Select Committee report on religious offences, which we will debate later, the Government state unequivocally:
"Religious values do indeed still play a significant part in shaping social values, perhaps increasingly so".

423
Because I feel that the point has not been made, I shall give a little time to thinking about the positive discrimination in favour of marriage. I guess that our predecessors did that because they recognised the stark reality of the position of, say, a widow who, having devoted her life to the upbringing of a family, needed the protection of the law to enable her to remain in the family home without penalty and to benefit from her husband's pension after his death. Positive discrimination had a just purpose, but it also had a didactic purpose.
In the different circumstances of our present society, it is clearly right that protection should be extended to those in the range of equally devoted relationships in which each has contributed to the well-being of the other and their dependants. However, in the message that we give to society, it will remain a matter of judgment whether the extension of positive discrimination by creating a largely undefined or, perhaps, self-defined relationship will be beneficial to society, as well as to the individuals concerned. Some have therefore argued that the issues of justice will be better addressed in other ways—reference has already been made to the Roman Catholic bishops—because they feel that the covert message of the development is an equivalence between marriage and other relationships.
Although I fully share the desire to support marriage—the Government have made it clear that it is not their intention to create such equivalence, except in issues of discrimination—I believe that how the move will be seen in practice is another matter. We must face the question of whether the provision of civil partnerships will weaken the status of marriage or the commitment to it in our society, as others have indicated. As other noble Lords have said, the evidence from other European societies suggests that it will not. However, many hold the contrary view, and, on the admittedly unreliable evidence of my postbag, the protagonists of both viewpoints, many of them Christian, are equally vocal and clear about the veracity of their judgment.
Those who feel that the move will undermine the unique status of marriage acknowledge that law shapes people's understandings and behaviour. In their view, creating equality in law with marriage gives a signal to society that marriage and civil partnerships are equally important to the well-being of society. My brother bishop, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, has argued the contrary view, and I, personally, have some sympathy with it. However, if a bishop may admit to such a failing, I find myself to be slightly agnostic on the matter. Having listened carefully to both sides, I do not know which will prove in the event to be right. It remains a matter of difficult judgment. It deals with people's attitudes, which are always unpredictable. Where there is a degree of uncertainty, we should err on the side of caution, without denying the problems that genuinely exist. It is for that reason that I welcome the measured response that the Government have put before us.
424
My time is up, but I shall make two further comments. First, I sympathise with those, including many from the gay community, who have expressed concern that, in contrast to the general understanding of the purposes of marriage, the purposes of a civil partnership are not explained. That ambiguity about the nature and purpose of the relationship means that an emphasis on rights is not necessarily balanced with an equal emphasis on responsibilities. The commitment is not clear, and nor is the nature of the unreasonable behaviour that might lead to dissolution. Those matters need clarifying.
I agree with those, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who say that it will not address all cases of discrimination. I have some sympathy with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and others that those matters should be dealt with in another way. Therefore, I give the Bill a cautious welcome, and I hope that some of the issues can be addressed in Committee.
1.56 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I speak in this excellent debate as a foot soldier promoted to second-in-command to support my noble friend Lord Goodhart, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I share the regret expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that he is not standing here instead of me.
What a debate it has been: we had the young gladiator. the noble Lord, Lord Alli; the tried and tested foot soldiers in the battle for equality, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Gould of Potternewton and Lady Rendell of Babergh; the wisdom of two Members speaking from the Bishops Benches; and the courage and valour in opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. We also had the humanity displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is his opening sentences, and the little "l" liberalism of the noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Wilcox. We have had an astonishing display of what this House can produce when an important subject is before us. I am not sure that I can live up to what has gone before, but I shall do my best.
As a Liberal Democrat, I welcome the Bill. It reflects our policy, in part at least. As my noble friend Lord Goodhart said, we would have combined the provisions of the Bill with similar provisions for opposite-sex partners, as my noble friend did in his Bill of January 2002. I regret that, in the two years since then, the Government have not been able to introduce a Bill that benefits opposite-sex and same-sex partners. Can the Minister assure us that the Government still intend to work towards that objective and that the study being carried out by the Department for Constitutional Affairs means just that? Bearing in mind the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady O'Cathain and Wilcox, and by many others, do the Government intend to turn to the problems of people who live in platonic but nevertheless supportive relationships?
Despite some general reservations, however, I repeat my welcome for the Bill. It will provide a legal framework of basic rights and responsibilities for

425
same-sex couples that will encourage those who wish to do so to live together in stable partnerships for their own benefit, that of their children and of society as a whole. Rather than deal with the Bill in general, I shall concentrate on a few points of dispute raised by lobbyists or during this debate.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford mentioned the worries shared by some Christians. Christian Voice, which says that it is trying to,
"look at the Civil Partnership Bill with the mind of God",
criticises it on several grounds, particularly for harming children, undermining marriage, putting no responsibility on same-sex partners and intending civil partnership to be marriage in all but name. As someone who believes wholeheartedly in the secular state, with freedom of religious belief and observance, I do not subscribe to the view that a particular religious belief should determine how every citizen leads his life.
Same-sex couples can already legally adopt children and take parental responsibility for them. It is therefore for the benefit of the parents, the children and, ultimately, society as a whole, including married people, that the Bill encourages a stable and loving environment for child rearing within a same-sex couple. Nor do I believe that the Bill undermines marriage, although the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, made an impassioned defence of that view. There are two different things: namely. marriage or a partnership recognised by law. The intent of the Bill is to establish that difference.
My next comment may seem to be contrary or illogical in the light of my previous point. However, life is sometimes illogical. Interestingly, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement wants Clause I amended to ensure that those wishing to be civil partners should declare that they,
"intend to live in mutual commitment for an indeterminate period".
In other words; it wants to impose a duty on people who go forward for civil partnership.
In addition, the LGCM thinks that there should be a solemn declaration of mutual commitment between the parties in the procedure for civil partnership in Clause 8, because that commitment is the essence of the relationship. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford made reference to that, which was of great interest to all noble Lords on these Benches. I am sympathetic to that approach. I am also sympathetic to the suggestion from the LGCM that clauses which statutorily prevent registration of civil partnerships from taking place in premises mainly used for religious ceremonies should be struck from the Bill.
I do not favour the term "gay marriage". The normal definition of marriage simply cannot be massaged to cover same-sex relationships. I do not think that we are ready to redefine that ancient institution, however faulty it sometimes seems to be in practice. However, I do not think that the state should interfere with the authority of those people who govern churches and other religious premises. It may seem appropriate to some—whether or not to the Church of England—to bless civil partners immediately after the registrar has registered the civil
426
partnership in the same building. I think that I am right to say that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford made a similar point.
Finally, there is the major problem of pensions. Clearly, the Bill is open to criticism on grounds of justice and equality. Surviving civil partners will stand to gain only from a deceased person's pension benefits that have accrued since the commencement of the Act that will emerge from the Bill. Those people will receive a smaller pension than surviving spouses. But UNISON says that,
"surviving partner pensions should be available to all partners who are financially interdependent irrespective of marital status, gender or sexual orientation".
I take that very broad statement to be a sensible point of view.
The irony is that many private pension providers already rightly recognise equality between partners and spouses. After all, they pay the same contributions. It seems that it is the public sector that lags behind. In that respect, the Bill seems to be introducing or tolerating prejudice that is not in the spirit of human rights legislation. One cannot help but fear that cost arguments may have prevailed. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on those two points.
I hope that I have not introduced a carping tone into the debate. Like my noble friend Lord Goodhart, I want the Bill to succeed and to play a beneficial role in society. When all is said and done, it is a forward looking and brave Bill. With some modification, it may become better still. Thankful as I am that I shall not have to torture my brain with the legal nitty-gritty in which the Bill abounds, I nevertheless reaffirm my support for it both now and in future stages.
2.4 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, on the extremely high standard of debate in terms of expertise—as always in your Lordships' House—and in terms of wisdom, if I may presume to use the word. In relation to these matters, that is certainly needed.
On listening to the debate almost 40 years after I first entered Parliament, inevitably, I have found myself reflecting on the quite extraordinary change that has taken place in public attitudes to such matters as homosexuality and so forth—indeed, not only outside, but also inside both Houses. By a strange coincidence, my major opponent in the first election that I fought in Worthing was a Mr Anthony Lester. Modesty forbids me to say the result. Indeed, it is sad that for very justified reasons he is unable to be here today. We shall certainly look forward to his contributions at later stages. Since the noble Lord has not followed the elected route, we must recognise the tremendous advantage to our constitution to have an upper House that is appointed.
A Noble Lord: Another debate!
Lord Higgins: Another debate. My Lords, soon after my election, Mr Humphrey Berkeley bravely

427
introduced a Private Member's Bill that resulted in the criminal aspects previously imposed on homosexuals being removed. That was a very important stage in the progress of these matters. Certainly, the Bill being debated today is a major milestone concerning reform in this area.
Of course, these issues involve deeply held views, which is why, as my noble friend Lady Wilcox said, on this side of the House we are having a free vote. I am not entirely clear whether that is true for the other side. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether that is so. Personally—this is a personal matter to a large extent—I support the Bill, in one way for the most simple of reasons: one must surely be more in favour of stable homosexual relationships than those that are not. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Alli, indicating assent. In some ways, that is a very important aspect of the Bill.
Of course, we shall scrutinise the Bill very carefully at later stages. Alas, hitherto, for various reasons, we have not had an opportunity to discuss it with Ministers. I gather that a huge array of Ministers will appear at later stages. It may be more appropriate to have individual meetings with them on what will undoubtedly be highly technical matters.
Perhaps the main stream of argument that has tended to arise time and again today is whether the Bill will undermine the institution of marriage. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford took the view that that was not the case. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain took a very strong view the other way. Of course, both views are entirely legitimate. As has been pointed out already, there are varying views inside and outside the House. My view is that on balance it will probably support marriage rather than otherwise.
There has also been a considerable amount of discussion on whether the right to engage in a civil partnership should be extended to heterosexual couples. On listening to the debate, that seems to be the one thing that would undermine the institution of marriage. Therefore I agree strongly with the views expressed by the Government. I am reinforced in that view because it is also the opposite of that expressed by the Mayor of London.
I raise now a number of other points which are more in my normal field. Leaving on one side the issues I have just mentioned, I turn to the question of taxation and social security provisions. The Inland Revenue has issued a mysterious press release stating that the provisions relating to this Bill would be set out in the next available Finance Bill. We do not have the remotest idea what that means. It could refer to the Finance Bill which received its Second Reading a few days ago or it could mean the one that will be brought forward after the next Budget. I hope that the Minister can give us a clear answer here. However, it seems to me important that the provisions should be included in the Finance Bill now before the Commons because it will be quite absurd for us to have to debate the Bill without knowing the situation with regard to taxation. Alternatively, perhaps the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Wilcox should be taken up and a separate Finance Bill introduced at the same time.
428
Perhaps I am being overly optimistic, but I assume that the clauses related to this Bill are in draft form. If neither of the alternatives I have proposed are acceptable to the Government, then before we consider the Bill in detail they certainly ought to publish the clauses which they are going to put forward in draft form.
I refer briefly to an important point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough on the extent to which there are incentives to marriage in our fiscal and social security system, and the extent to which they will be duplicated in this Bill. Again, there probably is a case for giving an incentive to stable relationships, whether they be heterosexual or those formed under a civil partnership.
To some extent this Bill opens a Pandora's box. It brings out some of the anomalies in our taxation and social security systems which have lain dormant for many years. Perhaps we agree with Walpole that we should let sleeping dogs lie, but alas this Bill will give some of those anomalies a hefty kick and the dogs will suddenly start to bark.
Perhaps I may cite one example. The history of married women's pensions goes back to Beveridge. As my noble friend Lord Onslow pointed out, the tax system has been changing over time, along with the social environment. However, the reality is that under the present system a woman receives a widow's pension—I am sorry, I should have said a wife's pension—on the basis of her husband's contributions. At the time of Beveridge that was generally the situation because few women were likely to make contributions in their own right. However, in effect, they get that wife's pension for free in that they pay the same amount in contributions as a single person. So there is a discrimination here against the single person.
Once one starts to bring into the system a new group of people, should one perpetuate the anomaly? I do not think that there are many votes in going in the opposite direction and saying that women will not receive a wife's pension unless they pay more for it—and I do not propose that—but there are difficulties in deciding where to draw the line. There are a number of other examples related not only to tax and social security matters, but also in regard to divorce law—on which I am totally inexpert—and a number of other areas.
I return to a point that has been implicit in a number of the speeches in our debate. The Bill will establish a provision for a civil partnership. I have had difficulty in persuading anyone to provide me with a definition of the difference between sex and gender, which is confusing. The trouble is that the Bill implies, to some extent, that these civil partners will have a sexual relationship. However, other speeches have suggested the opposite; namely, that the Bill does not do so.
A noble Lord: It is up to them.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, while that may be the case, the problem is that the Government will not know. It is not at all clear why a same-sex couple in a sexual relationship entering into a civil partnership should enjoy the tax and other benefits which a same-sex

429
couple entering into a civil partnership which does not have a sexual relationship would not have. This brings me immediately to the point that arose in an earlier discussion about the problem of people who are living together, but not necessarily in a sexual relationship. Should they be entitled to enter into a civil partnership and enjoy the benefits which result from that?
I think that the situation has been complicated by a number of noble Lords. As an economist by training, it is always helpful to employ a certain amount of technical jargon, so I shall refer to the difficulty arising here as the "spinster problem", concerning two elderly spinsters living together.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me an opportunity to intervene briefly. I am sad to say that there are many married couples who are not in a sexual relationship. Surely that is relevant.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I apologise for not being in the Chamber when my noble friend made her speech, although I realise that she is concerned about this point. It is one that is quite true. We shall run into a terrible minefield about whether there can be annulment either for a married or a same-sex couple. I shall not pursue that line for the moment, but I take the point made by my noble friend.
I return to the spinster problem. Why should it be the case that two spinsters who have lived together for many years should not enter into a civil partnership and, as a result, enjoy the various benefits that would accrue to a same-sex couple with a sexual relationship?
There may be an even greater problem. Again, I shall resort to the kind of jargon which may be useful in Committee by referring to the "sister spinster problem". One must then tackle the whole problem of family relationships, which are not the same for same-sex couples as they are for couples comprising both sexes. We shall run into problems. There seems to be a very strong argument for covering the spinster problem, although I have to say that I am more doubtful about the sister spinster problem. I apologise for speaking in such a technical fashion. If one lets economists contribute to debates of this nature, one must expect that kind of thing to happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, has been either nodding or shaking her head throughout my remarks. I have made a careful note of when she does one and when the other. I turn, therefore, to the whole issue of cohabitation. That will be an extraordinary mess. It is not such a difficulty in terms of taxation, but it is a substantial problem in the area of social security. One knows only too well all the issues thrown up by couples living together, whether they may be cohabiting and engaged in benefit fraud, and the extent to which the Government are responsible for deciding whether they are engaged in such fraud and so forth. We must ask whether those considerations are to be extended to same-sex couples. I look forward to hearing at a later stage what the noble Baroness has to say about that. However, the whole cohabitation aspect of this matter will present considerable problems.
430
The reality is that some of these issues are even more complicated in that it may be that some engaged in civil partnerships will find that instead of gaining various benefits they actually lose them. That again is a whole area of concern. So to suppose that this is a simple Bill, even at 258 pages, is not the case. We will have to spend a lot of time on it. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in her opening remarks said that an enormous amount of hard work had been done over the past two years. That is clearly the case. Alas, I feel that an enormous amount of hard work is ahead of your Lordships.
I hope that in Committee, and so on, we will have the help and advice from the right reverend Prelates and others on a number of points which I have not referred to. I hope that we can ensure that the Bill and also the provisions with regard to taxation in particular—which do not appear in the Bill— can be adequately decided and that we will recognise when we look back some time in the future that the Bill is a milestone. It is an excellent idea for the Bill to start in your Lordships' House and I hope that it will be said that your Lordships did a good job.
2.21 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reply with a considerable sense of pride because we truly have had a splendid and well informed debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that I am particularly pleased that when we come to the issues of state benefit and pensions I will have the encyclopaedic knowledge of my noble friend Lady Hollis, who will have the privilege and pleasure of duelling, as she always does, with the noble Lord opposite. In due course I will say a little about that.
The reason why I say that I rise with pleasure is the nature of the debate that we have had. There has been a great deal of humanity on all sides and from all those who have spoken. There has been sympathy, even in difference. The two voices who have spoken against the Bill—the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun—spoke with moderation and precision.
It is right that my noble friends Lord Alli and Lady Gould remind us that we have come a very long way. It was particularly telling that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, mentioned Wolfendon of 50 years ago, because that journey has been long, painful and difficult, but it has demonstrated something which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, exemplified; namely, that we sought to concentrate on what love truly means in terms of dignity, parity of treatment, fairness and justice. That is what the Bill primarily seeks to address.
The Government introduced the Civil Partnership Bill for reasons of social justice and equality. The Bill would be worth doing if there were 800, 8,000 or 80,000 people living in same-sex relationships in this country. The figure of 39,761 same-sex couples, identified by the Office for National Statistics in the 2001 census data, is likely to be a minimum estimate. There may be same-sex couples who, for a variety of

431
reasons, were not identified. Details of our take-up assumptions were published in the regulatory impact assessment: we anticipated that by 2010 there will be between 11,000 and 22,000 people in civil partnerships.
As part of the policy development process we will continually monitor that evidence from a number of sources. We have accumulated evidence from comparable systems in other jurisdictions: Sweden had the Registered Partnership Act in June 1994; Norway had the Act on Registered Partnerships in April 1993; Denmark had the Act on Registered Partnerships 1989; and the Netherlands had the Registered Partnership Act 1997. Using that evidence, the take-up figure is based on assumptions that the proportion of the lesbian and gay population who will be in civil partnerships by 2050 will be 5 per cent. which is under the low scenario, or 10 per cent. which is under the high scenario, of the proportion of the heterosexual population who are married. It is for that reason that I said in my opening remarks that the figure would be between 5 and 10 per cent. The figure of 3.5 per cent is perhaps an unduly conservative one.
I should also make clear that the intention in relation to social security and tax credits legislation is that in general same-sex couples in civil partnerships will be treated in a similar way as married couples. Same-sex couples who are not in civil partnerships but who are living together as if they were civil partners are treated in the same way as opposite-sex, unmarried couples who are living together as husband and wife. That is the way in which we propose that those issues will be dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was right in his assumption that Her Majesty's Treasury tends not to foreshadow that which may become law and deals with matters once they are law. The noble Lord was right in his surmise that it is likely that this legislation, if passed, will not come into operation until October 2005, therefore there is plenty of time for there to be another Finance Bill other than that which is currently going through Parliament in which these provisions could appear. But that is a matter which we will have to debate and I am confident that that debate will be an extensive one.
I should also make clear that in accordance with the usual system in contracted-out schemes, members will accrue rights to survivor benefits for a civil partner from the date of implementation of the civil partnership proposals. Improvements to public service schemes and contracting-out regimes are made for future service only. As noble Lords will remember, when new benefits were introduced for members of pension schemes, they were normally introduced prospectively—for example the guaranteed minimum pensions were extended to widowers from 1988, whereas widows were entitled from 1978—so retrospection would add significant liabilities to those schemes which do not already pay survivor benefits to unmarried couples. Public sector schemes would have to shoulder most of that burden. But I absolutely
432
understand from the comments made by a number of your Lordships in this debate that that will be an issue that we will wish to address with some care.
In relation to the comments on the reason why we have not included others in this scheme, I very much appreciate the understanding shown by a number of noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that these relationships are very different. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who dealt with the issue of what would happen if you entered into a contract with a member of your family and that person subsequently wished to marry, and indeed what would happen if there were more than one sibling who entered into a contract, and how you would then disaggregate those relationships. Those issues are certainly not for this Bill.
It is right, as I mentioned, that the Department for Constitutional Affairs is looking at what more could be done about the myth of common-law marriages and making sure that people understand the risks that they face and the choices they make when they choose not to enter marriage or in some other way regularise the nature of their relationships. Noble Lords will also know that, if one does not wish to enter into marriage, there are many legal steps one can take to better secure one's financial and long-term arrangements, which are also available for us all.
I warmly welcome the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, many of which were echoed with great sympathy by his fellow right reverend Prelate, although the emphasis was different. We believe that what was said by the Synod is very much carried through in the Bill. There is division—that was evident on the Bishops' Benches—but the Government have sought to walk a path between the areas of disagreement, one of proportionality, fairness and balance. We hope that we have created sufficient comfort for those who disagree on some of these issues to make it possible, as the debate has demonstrated, for us all to walk together, even though our steps may be at a slightly different pace. We believe that that is certainly worth doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, raised the question of adoption. He may not recall, but we dealt with many of the issues in the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Anyone who wishes to adopt must first be assessed and approved by the Adoption Agency. One of the key considerations in assessing people's suitability to adopt is their ability to provide a loving family environment in which to raise a child through childhood and beyond. So, when assessing a couple's suitability to be adoptive parents, whether they are unmarried, married or civil partners, the assessment will consider the stability and the enduring nature of the relationship.
In England and Wales, once the relevant provisions of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 come into force in September 2005, unmarried couples—whether same sex or opposite sex—will be able to make a joint adoption application. The Bill will regularise the position of children who are part of such relationships to take advantage of the same rights as other children

433
and other couples. I hope the noble Lord will find that these provisions accord with his aspirations as opposed to not doing so.
I should have reassured the House that when the proposed tax changes come in they will be implemented at the same time. We anticipate that that will about a year after Royal Assent. Of course, we do not know the precise date when the Bill will finish its passage through this House and the other place.
Let me reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that her reticence about standing as a foot soldier is quite unmerited. We have seen her for a long time as being one of the Liberal Democrats' major-generals.
I, too, regret that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is not in his place. He, together with many noble Lords who have spoken, would have been very warmed by the nature and extent of the debate. My noble friend Lady Rendell asked a question very similar to the one posed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I hope I have made plain that the Law Commission's report on home sharers in 2002 concluded that, because of the disparity and diversity of the relationships that are present.. there is no simple solution that covers all. I hope I have made it clear that that work needs to continue.
My noble friends Lady Gould and Lord Alli raised the question of the work that needs to be done in regard to co-habitees. I hope that I have said enough to reassure the House that this issue will continue to excite our attention.
The Bill will undoubtedly demand a high degree of scrutiny. It is right that I should tell your Lordships that there will be a whole phalanx of Ministers helping to carry through the Bill. I make it plain immediately that we will be very happy to hold separate meetings in relation to specific areas of the Bill that particularly excite the attention of noble Lords.
The Bill has been carefully crafted. We hope, as the debate has demonstrated, that many of the issues with which noble Lords are concerned have been covered. However, I warmly welcome the historical excitement that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, brought to the debate. In the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, it is rare indeed that we should have the whole Bible as well as a 15th-century quote rolled up in one. For that, we thank the noble Earl, who brought such colour and flavour to the debate.
I commend the Bill to your Lordships. There is work for us to do but one is warmed by the direction in which we appear to be going. It seems to be one upon which we are all embarked.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2004
2.37 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brightonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15 March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
434
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 introduced an order-making power to ban the manufacture, sale and importation of specified offensive weapons. Today, in an effort further to improve airline and public safety, we are seeking to add the category of stealth knives and truncheons to the schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988.
Before I get too far into the discussion on the order, I must apologise to your Lordships' House for an error in the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanied the order. The memorandum refers to the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. That reference should not be there. It should be recorded, however, that there is a link between this order and the Prevention of Crime Act, which I shall explain shortly.
Currently, the offensive weapons order prohibits 15 weapons, including sword sticks, push daggers, death stars, butterfly knives and disguised knives. The manufacture, sale, hire and import of flick knives and gravity knives are already banned under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
Adding the weapons, stealth knives and truncheons, to the order will have the effect of making it an offence for a person to manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, expose or have in their possession for the purpose of sale or hire, or lend or give to any other person, or to import, a stealth knife or truncheon. A person would be liable on summary conviction to a maximum term of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding the sum of £5,000.
The order does not create an offence of simple possession. However, the design and construction of stealth knives and truncheons is such that their possession in public, without lawful authority, or reasonable excuse, may be unlawful under Section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. That section makes it an offence for a person to have an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. An offensive weapon is defined in Section 1(4) of that Act as meaning,
"any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him, or by some other person".
In the case of DPP v Hynde (1988) the court took notice of the fact that an item was unlawful under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in deciding it was clearly meant for causing injury. Furthermore, in the case of Houghton v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester (1986), it was held that a truncheon is an offensive weapon per se. In addition, for the possession of stealth knives, Section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 creates an offence for a person to have with him in public a sharply pointed article or an article having a blade without good reason or lawful authority.
Therefore I seek to reassure the House that legislation exists to deal with the possession of such items in public and what we are seeking to address with the order is their manufacture, sale and import.
In 2002, in the light of the events of 11 September, the concern of the airport industry and our wish to ensure effective levels of airline security, we added

435
disguised knives to the offensive weapons order. They had no legitimate purpose and were manufactured simply to evade detection and provide those so minded with a convenient means of carrying a deadly weapon. We now intend to do the same with stealth knives.
Stealth knives are non-metallic hunting or stiletto knives, made of a range of materials, such as nylon zytel or high impact plastic. Although they look like conventional knives, they are difficult to detect because they are non-metallic. We recognise that there are legitimate uses for non-metallic knives; that is why the definition of a stealth knife includes an exemption for knives designed for domestic use or for use in the processing, preparation or consumption of food or as a toy. One company that sells stealth knives claims in publicity material that,
"these knives are made of a super strong nylon composite that is almost as hard as steel. They can be driven through plywood like a nail. They are completely undetectable when passing through metal detectors".
Although the knives present a general threat because of their portability and concealability, they pose a particular risk to airline security as their material is difficult to detect, especially by metal detectors. The Government consider it a priority to legislate to prohibit the manufacture, sale, hire and importation of these knives.
Ministers have also received a number of representations from both Members of Parliament and the police about truncheons being sold to criminals and used for unlawful purposes. Telescopic truncheons are already included on the offensive weapons order 1988 list, but we intend to add straight, side-handled and friction-lock truncheons to the order. I should emphasise that these weapons can cause serious injuries should they end up in the wrong hands.
Truncheons, both side-handled and friction-lock batons, are used by the police as an important piece of self-defence equipment. The order will not affect the police's ability to carry and use such equipment. The police, and those manufacturing and supplying otherwise prohibited weapons to the police, have a defence under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for importing, manufacturing or possessing these items. This is because they are carrying out functions on behalf of the Crown for the purposes of that Act.
Although legislation is already in place making it illegal to carry offensive weapons and most knives in public, there is nothing to prevent the sale, import or manufacture of stealth knives and truncheons. Currently an individual can walk into a shop or log onto the Internet and get hold of these weapons with comparative ease. That is why we now intend to take action to reduce the number of stealth knives and truncheons.
Although we are not aware of the numbers of stealth knives and truncheons in circulation, we know they are freely available and used in the Commission of crime. That shows the willingness of certain manufacturers to produce such weapons and provide the public with a wide range of concealed weapons. The Police Superintendents'
436
Association called for restrictions on the sale of truncheons following evidence of their use by criminals, in some cases resulting in serious injury.
It is worth noting that in 2002–03 Her Majesty's Customs and Excise seized 1,983 offensive weapons at airports, sea ports and from the postal system, giving a strong indication of the willingness of a significant number of people to equip themselves with and attempt to bring dangerous weapons into the country.
As those weapons are easily available we believe that it is of the utmost importance to prevent their sale, manufacture and import, cutting off their supply as far as possible and reducing the number in circulation. By legislating to ban the manufacture, sale and import of stealth knives and truncheons, public safety will be improved, not only at airports and on board aircraft but also at places such as nightclubs, sports grounds, courts, pubs and other public places where individuals may try to evade security and carry these weapons for criminal purposes.
Prohibiting the manufacture, sale and import of stealth knives and truncheons is a matter of both airline and public security and safety. This measure will have clear benefits for airlines and the public. It is the most effective measure that we can take to stop the supply of wholly unacceptable and dangerous weapons which have no legitimate purpose and reduce the possibility of them ending up in the hands of those intent on criminal activity. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we introduce these measures and bring them fully into force. I urge that the Motion be supported. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15 March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we on this side entirely support the measures, which are designed to make the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act more effective. We are up against continual ingenuity on the part of suppliers and manufacturers of such weapons. The Minister has outlined the dangers, particularly in the port context but also domestically in nightclubs and so on.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, from these Benches we support the Government's aims in introducing the order. It is for all our safety: on airlines, in clubs and restaurants, and of course particularly in the Houses of Parliament. We should not only keep up with technological development but, where possible, the law should pre-empt it—although we are not doing that in this case; we are following on behind.
We must remember that the people who carry such weapons are up to no good. Nylon zytel and high impact plastic knives are specifically manufactured to avoid detection, so it is right that they should be put beyond the law. I understand that the Government want to cut the supply chain by banning their manufacture and selling, as this order does. But what are they doing about all the weapons washing around

437
in the system? Unless someone carries these weapons in public, they are still not committing an offence. However, their very existence in somebody's cupboard creates a threat to society.
Will there be an amnesty for weapons already in existence? The order comes into force in only one month. Will there be compensation for shops who have stock of such weapons? If not, the shopkeepers may try to sell them off at half price, thereby going completely contrary to the Government's intention of having fewer of these things around in the system.
The debate in another place on the order on Tuesday revealed a great deal of concern about the definitions. Surely the point is not that an item is a knife or spike but that it is a blade or point, capable of inflicting considerable injury or threatening to do so. In the debate in another place there was an enormous amount of concern about that issue and particularly about the definition of a straight, side-handled or friction-lock truncheon, sometimes known as a baton, mentioned in the order.
Although the side-handle and the friction-lock versions are clear, as I see it the problem lies with the definition of a straight truncheon. There are numerous sticks used for martial arts, for walking in the hills, and so on, that might fall foul of this definition. It is really not good enough to tell a martial arts expert or a hill walker that the courts will decide whether they are committing an offence when they carry a staff or stick. They need clear guidance from the statute before inadvertently breaking the law and coming up before the courts.
My other question is about antiques and toys. I understand that antique police batons are sold in large numbers and, if they were made more than 100 years before the offence, they are excluded from the 1953 Act that bans possession of an offensive weapon. However, there are many collectable police truncheons that were made in the 1930s. Can the Minister clarify the circumstances in which it would be lawful to possess such a thing? The other concern is toys. How are they defined, and how can a parent know that he or she is not buying a toy truncheon that will fall foul of this order? Unless the Government clarify that point, it could be that every nursery teacher in the country will become a criminal.
In another place, the Minister reassured the committee that under the 1988 Act it is already an offence to possess a pointed or bladed weapon that is not a folding knife, with a blade of 3.5 inches or more. However, a folding stealth knife with a blade of 3.2 inches is a fairly lethal weapon. I wonder whether the Minister can explain how the law, as amended by this order, protects the public from those knives. A weapon with a blade of any length, which was specifically manufactured to avoid detection, should be clearly made unlawful as to its manufacture, sale, possession, carrying and use—although use is already illegal. Why did the Government not simply lift the definition of those weapons from the 1988 Act and add,
"which is made of material not readily detectable by apparatus used for detecting metal",
rather than tying themselves in the sort of knots that were asked about on Tuesday in another place?
438
I am not trying to be less than supportive of the Government's laudable aims—I am just trying to get it right. I absolutely concur with the Government's aims, but I fear that, unless we get some very clear answers, we may find ourselves back in this Chamber before very long to put things right, because this order is not very well drafted.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords. I am grateful for the support that I have had, even if I am slightly less grateful for some of the questions—although I am sure that those questions have been asked and responses invited for the best of motives. I listened carefully to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
It would be fair to say, on reflection, that definition issues are not easy in this case. The noble Baroness has come up with some words of her own, and I am sure that they are valid as expressed. I believe that we should be honest and say that finding a definition, especially for a stealth knife, was problematic, and advice had to be taken.
We wanted a definition that specifically covered non-metallic knives not used for domestic use or for use in the processing, preparation or consumption of food or as a toy. It was decided that we should adopt the approach that we did, and we decided to keep the definition of a baton as simple as possible. That is the explanation and background to that question. We may well have to look at these matters again, from time to time. There is a history to defining offensive weapons that goes back some 50 years.
The noble Baroness asked a number of other questions relating to antiques and martial arts weapons, to which I shall respond as best I can. With regard to martial arts enthusiasts, it will in the end be for the courts to decide whether an item falls within a definition of a straight-side handled or friction-lock truncheon. The intention, broadly, is for long staffs and walking sticks not to be caught, and, accordingly, the definition applies to truncheons alone. Reference is made to the word "baton" as truncheons are occasionally described in that way.
As for antiques, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 provides that it is not an offence to sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, or to expose or have in one's possession for the purpose of sale, hire, lending or giving to another person, or to import any of the weapons detailed in the order that are antiques. Antiques are defined for the purposes of the order as something that has been manufactured more than 100 years before the date of an offence alleged to have been committed in respect of that weapon under subsection (1) of Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The noble Baroness also asked about compensation. Our view is that it is incumbent on the Government to take action to deal with that problem, but we do not therefore believe that compensation is payable in these circumstances. I should add that we have not faced great swathes of pressure on that point, although consultation has been somewhat limited because of the importance of bringing the order forward.

439
The toys definition applies to a stealth knife but not to a truncheon. The noble Baroness may also have raised the issue of a stealth knife in a folding pocket format. In any regard, I shall make this simple point. The legislation attempts to deal with an offence of having without good reason or lawful authority any article that has a blade or is sharply pointed. That is covered by Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Folding pocket knives are excluded from the offence if the cutting edge of the blade exceeds 3 inches. The legislation that we are dealing with derives from Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and the offence created thereunder. Accordingly, if a stealth knife was manufactured that had a folding blade, it would still be unlawful under this order.
Finally, it is just worth saying that there will always be definition problems with regard to these issues. We appreciate that and have done our best to come up with something workable, which captures those weapons of concern. These are clearly weapons of concern, particularly in the wake of 9/11. For those reasons, I hope that your Lordships will be entirely happy with the order. While we seek at all times to cover all angles, it is not possible to be absolutely precise on every occasion, but we believe that we have done the best possible job that we can. For those reasons, I hope that your Lordships' House will approve the order this afternoon.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Travel Notification Requirements) Regulations 2004
2.58 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brightonrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25 March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations before the House today fulfil a commitment made on 19 May 2003 by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his previous role as a Home Office Minister. Your Lordships will recall that Section 86 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides a power to the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the foreign travel notifications of "registered sex offenders". The existing regulations, made under the Sexual Offenders Act 1997, provide that all offenders subject to the notification requirements must notify the police if they intend to travel overseas for a period of eight days or more. Such notifications must be made 48 hours before departure, unless the information is not known at that time, in which case the notification must be made 24 hours prior to departure.
During debates on the Sexual Offences Act in your Lordships' House, consideration was given to what new regulations should include. There was considerable support for reducing from eight days to three days the period that an offender can intend to spend abroad without having to notify the police.
440
Making registered sex offenders notify their foreign travel is necessary for two reasons. First, such a requirement enables the police to know when and for how long an offender will be overseas. That is important as it prevents offenders evading the notification requirements in the United Kingdom by claiming they were out of the country. Secondly, the foreign travel regulations provide information that the police can pass to other jurisdictions where they believe there is a risk that the offender might commit sexual offences overseas. The police can, and do, pass information to other countries in this way and it is particularly useful as a tool in our fight against sex tourism.
The concern raised in this House, which was echoed in another place, was that the period of eight days was simply too long as offenders could travel to abuse children overseas and return to the UK without having to notify the police. In response to these concerns we consulted with various interested bodies including the children's charities, the travel industry and law enforcement agencies. We considered carefully the range of views expressed during that consultation, taking into account the need to balance the risks to children overseas against the additional burdens on the police and offenders that would arise from any change to the requirements.
As a result, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor announced our intentions on 19 May and the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Travel Notification Requirements) Regulations, which I am asking the House to consider today, will reduce the period sex offenders can intend to spend abroad before they have to notify the police from the current eight days to three days and additionally require offenders to notify the police seven days in advance of their intended travel, as opposed to the maximum of 48 hours in advance at present. Where an offender needs to travel at short notice, or where his travel plans change after notification, he will be required to notify the police at least 24 hours before travelling. Failure to comply with these regulations without reasonable excuse will be a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. This is provided for at Section 91 of the 2003 Act.
These measures have been well trailed and well rehearsed. We were persuaded by the arguments made at the time and we think that these measures will go some way towards preventing awful and appalling crimes in future. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25 March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, on this side of the House we entirely support these regulations. They come against a background of the appalling growth in sex tourism world-wide. Sex tourism in the Far East is well known but there is disturbing evidence of a growth in sex tourism much closer to home in Europe, particularly, I understand, on the border between Germany and the Czech Republic, in western Bohemia, where child sex is openly advertised in the

441
windows of houses. For these reasons we are in agreement with the regulations, in particular with the reduction in the time limit for notification and in the period for which the offender intends to stay overseas. We support this measure.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, it is great pleasure to offer the Minister and the Government the wholehearted congratulations of these Benches on listening to organisations such as World Vision and UNICEF—in which I must express an interest as a trustee—during the course of the proceedings on the Sexual Offences Bill and to the many people who have campaigned for this change in the regulations.
However, we need to keep a careful eye on the operation of the regulations and to look at whether they could be tightened even further at some time in the future. I gather than Interpol believes that a reduction in the period for which a person on the register could travel without notifying the authorities to 48 hours could be coped with. Perhaps the Government will be able to reassure us that they will look carefully at that because a good deal of mischief can be done in 24 hours, let alone 48 hours. We need to look at it.
We also need to look at the causes of sex tourism and at what else we can do. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, I was horrified to discover the extent of sex tourism and to find that the UK is fifth in the league of perpetrators of sex tourism. But we must not just look at the offenders. We must look at the internal problems that cause children and young people to feel that they need to sell their bodies.
We also need to nip the problem in the bud. The problem of first offenders needs to be looked at very hard. I think that some people go abroad and commit these offences in the mistaken belief that they can get away with them and that they are not likely to be prosecuted in this country when they return. Of course, as we all know, they are liable to prosecution but I wonder what more the Government can do to send out the message that this behaviour is quite unacceptable and will be prosecuted. Perhaps work could be done with airlines and travel agents to warn people that it is an offence and will be prosecuted.
There is also the question of people who have been convicted but who are on remand and waiting for sentencing. When a question was asked in another place about whether these regulations would apply to them the Minister who responded was not very clear in his answer. I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, can answer that question today.
It is important that we see these regulations in the context of the other measures that the Government have brought forward. We also have foreign travel orders that are available to the police if they have reason to believe that a person is travelling abroad for the purposes of committing an offence. I think that, when we put these regulations together with those orders and other measures. we have a great step forward in our ability to curtail the terrible activities of these sexual predators who prey on impoverished
442
children abroad. I am very pleased to support the regulations in general and hope that the Minster can answer the questions that I have raised.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to both opposition parties for their support for these regulations. It comes as no great surprise because I know that we were as one on this issue when the matter was debated previously. On policy issues such as this it is particularly important that we try to achieve a high degree of consensus in bringing these measures forward.
As ever, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raised interesting questions on the regulations, or, more accurately, used the regulations as a means of raising interesting questions on the issue in general. The first point she raised was whether we could consider a further reduction of the time limit to 48 hours at some point in the future. The noble Baroness expressed the view that Interpol thought it could handle that. I think that we ought to proceed with caution and monitor how this works first. In our view there is little point in having something on the statute book if it cannot be used effectively as a means of control and essentially we are trying to control human behaviour with these regulations.
The noble Baroness made the valid point that we should try to understand the causes behind an issue. That must be right, in particular in relation to sex tourism. I thought that she made a very sensible point when she said that we ought to try to nip this in the bud and then asked what more could be done. I think that this Government's record in the field has been exemplary. When it is held up to international comparison that is undoubtedly the case.
In the "more to be done column", what we would like to see is more international co-operation. I do not say that other jurisdictions do not take this issue seriously because they plainly do. However, it is interesting that other jurisdictions are now looking very carefully at the legislation that we have been putting in place in the United Kingdom over the past few years. I think that that means that they are now looking to achieve our levels of compliance. I am delighted that there is around a 97 per cent compliance rate with the legislation regarding the notification of movements of sex offenders that we put in place. That is important because it shows that the legislation is being perfected.
The noble Baroness asked a final question about those on remand. Notification requirements apply from the date of conviction, unless there is a sentence threshold for the offence. I understand that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is writing on this issue to the Member of Parliament who raised the question and I undertake to ensure that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is copied into that correspondence so that the matter is put on public record and made clear. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Religious Offences
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culrossrose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Religious Offences Committee on Religious Offences in England and Wales (HL Paper 95).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am extremely pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, back in her place. I remember what it was like being the Home Office Minister in this House, and a sandwich was indeed a luxury. At any rate, I think she must have had one.
When the Select Committee was appointed, nearly two years ago, it was the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who asked whether the then Lord Chairman of Committees thought that the membership would cover all ranges of opinion—including that which regards the concept of religion as nonsense. I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was answering that particular question, but the membership of the committee and the declared interests were very broad, as on page 6 of our report. One of the results was that there was very little prospect of reaching much in the way of a consensus or recommendations. I am not sorry for that—it was a good idea to explore the matter in a very general way and in some cases in a very particular way—so as to see what everybody thought.
What we had hoped for at the end of it all was that there would be a rousing debate. I am not sure what is going to happen today, but I hope it will be a rousing debate. I am extremely pleased to see that taking part are Members of this House who were not members of the Select Committee. It may be that the debate will go further than this Chamber.
The report has brought up-to-date the Law Commission report on blasphemy and other ancient offences which was published in 1985. It has also had a big opportunity to address the clause that was eventually left out of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill at the end of 2001. What has happened is that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who introduced the Private Member's Bill which gave rise to the Select Committee, has had a very extended and comprehensive Committee stage of that Bill. He took a great part in the discussions.
Other than mentioning the noble Lord, I am not going to do anything particular by way of paying tributes to my colleagues—it would be invidious. They know who I mean when I say that a number of them took great trouble to ensure that we had witnesses of calibre and of very great knowledge, who came before us on a number of different subjects, and assisted greatly in the deliberations. I think I am, however, allowed to pay a tribute to our Clerk, Mr Mackley. It was the first time other than in his diplomatic service that he had dealt with anything as complicated as this, and it was his introduction to your Lordships' deliberations. He has since gone on from strength to strength. He was supported by some excellent staff. In Professor Bradley we had an expert adviser from Leicester, which of all places is a multi-race and multi-faith community. He brought with him not only his legal knowledge but a great deal of local advantage as well.
444
Apart from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I am the only lawyer who is going to take part in this debate. I am sorry to say that this is a terribly legal matter, and there is no avoiding it. For the first time, I shall give my own opinion about what ought to be done next—I tried hard not to do this during the sessions of the Select Committee. I would not be in favour of repealing anything, or of enacting anything. I will elaborate on that.
I do not disparage the motives of those who disagree with me on either of those points, but I believe that a great deal of parliamentary time would be spent dealing either with repeals or with enactments of the sort that the Select Committee had to deal with. They would be highly contentious, we would spend a great a deal time, and the noble Baroness would be sitting for even longer on the Front Bench, dealing with it all. I do not wish to see the creation of any more criminal offences than we really must have—we have quite enough as it is. The last thing I want is to see any more being created, particularly if they are going to be of minimal effect.
I shall explain why I take this view. The starting point, which was not available to the Law Commission in 1985, is the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Select Committee was dealing only with England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own arrangements. I do not at all wish to speak about either of those. However, under the 1998 Act, the courts themselves are public authorities and it is unlawful for them to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right under the European Convention on Human Rights. The relevant rights are 7, 9, 10 and 14. They all have their bearing on the first point, which is blasphemy.
At the beginning of the report—paragraphs 38, 37, 34—and in some of the questions later on in the volumes dealing with the evidence, there is reference to vociferous groups who look on the law of blasphemy as virtually a cornerstone of the constitution. It was interesting to find that some of the Muslim witnesses supported the law of blasphemy because at least if you could protect one of the religions, it was better than nothing. The Jewish witnesses also saw that there was nothing very much that they were worried about, but they did see problems in the extension of blasphemy to any other religions. I totally agree with them.
I would suggest that, whatever people may think about this being the cornerstone of the constitution, there will be no more prosecutions for blasphemy. Any such case, if launched by a private individual, would be taken over by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and he would put paid to it. I do not think that he himself would allow the Crown Prosecution Service to bring such actions of its own accord. If it were to happen, however, there would be problems. Although the Human Rights Act deals with compatibility of legislation with the European Convention, it does not deal with compatibility of common law. Blasphemy is a common law offence. There could therefore be immense arguments about the impact of a number of the articles of the convention.

445
There is one case on which everybody relies, or purports to rely—Wingrove, which went to Strasbourg at the end of the nineties. It was about a video, and was an appeal from the British Board of Film Classification. The prohibition of showing the video was upheld by the Strasbourg court. I do not think that the arguments on either side were fully comprehensive. In any event, the way in which the Strasbourg court moves evolves from time to time, and blasphemy need not necessarily now be upheld by that court.
To be truthful, I believe that the problem of blasphemy is virtually insoluble. If it were to be repealed, it would produce an enormous reaction from those devoted to its existence. If it were sought to be extended, as the Law Commission minority suggested in 1985, it would be impossible to handle in terms of legislative content. The answer is that, if no one does anything about it at all, it will probably simply wither on the vine. That may not be good news to some people, but that is the reality.
I go on to the only other piece of ancient legislation that has been in the mind of the Select Committee, which is the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act. I shall leave that matter to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who has made prodigious researches into how it works. It is not a very formidable piece of legislation, but it is still used. It is used for comparatively minor offences, sometimes in combination with other criminal offences. It deals with an issue that is worth pursuing.
It does not matter what religion an occasion relates to, as the Act covers them all—and none, although I am not quite sure how one desecrates a religion that is not a religion. There will be occasions when one cannot charge someone who carries out desecration with criminal damage because they did not actually damage anything, and when one cannot charge them with a public order offence because there was no one there to be harassed or upset. There is an area where such legislation is useful, as a small piece of the criminal law.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, discovered that there was another prosecution last year. The major difficulty is that neither the CPS, nor anyone else, knows what it was about, and there are no records at all about any of the offences. It is extremely difficult to find out what has been happening. Nevertheless there was a conviction, and someone went to prison under the legislation. It is worth keeping, because it establishes that Parliament cares about people's religions, their premises, artefacts and things that make up the basis of their beliefs, and that if those are misused or abused there will be a remedy in criminal law. I would therefore not wish to see it repealed. To that extent, I disagree with the part of the Private Members Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that tried to do that.
I now come on to the major part of the debate; namely, incitement. Noble Lords will remember that the clause that introduced incitement to religious hatred was left out of the 2001 Bill. Therefore—I hope that Chapter 6 is a useful reminder—we looked at the background of the law on incitement. The proposition
446
in 2001 was to supplement the existing law on incitement to racial hatred in Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 with a new offence of incitement to religious hatred. The analogy between race and religion is not necessarily very sound. Race, which now includes under case law in this context Sikhs and Jews, as well as others, is something that one cannot change. Religion is undoubtedly important to very many people, but it is not immutable and can change from time to time. The more one thinks about it, the less it is clear that the two are interchangeable concepts for the purposes of criminal law.
I have in my mind a nutcracker, one claw of which is the existing criminal law on incitement. I shall talk about the other one in a minute. There is a very substantial amount of criminal law relating to incitement. It is a common-law offence to incite anyone to commit an offence, even if that person does not do it or even try to do it. The offence does not have to be directed towards any particular person; it may be directed towards a group, so it may be general. It must cover a great deal of the territory of those who incite people in terms of religious hatred. It is much more positive and less abstract than some people may think.
Under the racial aspect the Attorney-General must of course consent, and I have no difficulty with that. Prosecutions have been rare but there is the point that, if prosecution occurs and results in an acquittal, it can be seriously counterproductive, as it can give validity to whatever it was that was published and was the source of the prosecution. Section 39 of the 2001 Act created a number of offences that were identified and augmented if motivated by religious hatred. Increased penalties were laid down. There is plenty of room for incitement for any of those, and much of the territory would be covered.
The other jaw of my nutcracker is Article 10.2 of the European convention, which is on freedom of speech. We deal with that in paragraph 83 of the report. There is a constraint on both sides, as was recognised as far back as 1986. However, the full impact may not have been realised until quite recently. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, who gave evidence to the Select Committee and with whom we have had correspondence, was extremely helpful. He thought that incitement to religious hatred could be framed in such a way that it would not be struck down as incompatible with Article 10.2. I agree. Not only is there a margin of appreciation in Strasbourg for what is done in individual countries within the European Union, but there is a developing domestic jurisdiction that gives something like a margin of appreciation—it is called "deference"—in the internal courts of this country. I do not believe that legislation, in the terms of the second proposition in the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would run foul of the European convention as such on compatibility.
There is one other point on the question of incitement. I do not know whether he was right but, in the 1970s, Lord Justice Lawton gave a number of decisions that concerned incitement. He said that the common law of England continued to take the view that it was an offence to stir up hostility against any

447
section of Her Majesty's subjects. That has always been an offence. I have looked at the origins of what he said and am bound to say that I find that very dubious, but I do not think that the matter has been explored and I did not know about it when the Select Committee was sitting.
Other aspects of criminal law deal with incitement. Only quite recently, an imam of extremist views was convicted. He was imprisoned for stirring up hatred and convicted under Section 2 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. That is normally used for contract killers, but on this occasion, it was used for somebody who was trying to stir up religious hatred.
Therefore, a good deal of criminal law is available. I do not believe that it has all yet been tried out before we invent something else. It is, however, a little disturbing to find that no figures are available on incitement. Not only are there no figures on the use of the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860, but a Written Answer in another place last September stated that there were no figures at all for convictions for incitement. That concerns me.
I have said that the law itself, if it were passed, would not run foul of the European Convention on Human Rights, but I am less convinced about what would happen if there were a prosecution and a conviction. I believe, first, that a defence would be raised to bring in by any means the aspects of Article 10.2. A number of issues could be avoided if that were subject to the Attorney-General's consent. He would be able to get rid of disputes between sects; he would be able to get rid of disputes that should certainly never be the subject of criminal prosecution.
However, there really are aspects of religion that are bound to be the subject of criticism in public. What about those so-called religions which separate children from their families and which separate converts from their worldly goods? Are we really not allowed to criticise them? Yes, of course we are. It is one of our freedoms under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights that we should be able to do so. Then there are inflammatory websites. Those are very damaging. We have seen examples of them and of what they say.
The difficulty we face with those is that, as the people who wish to propagate that kind of inflammatory material are well aware, the law allows them all kinds of loopholes. If it is a website, it does not have to originate in this country. If it is received in this country, it will be prosecutable here, but who would be the defendant? If the defendant is overseas, there is nobody that one could get hold of. The culprits, well advised as they are, may well stay in some other land.
Therefore, it will not be the criticisms of religions that we all find distasteful or of the ultra-violent website, which probably cannot be pursued anyway, but the intermediate grade of incitement that will be made an offence under the kind of legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, sought to persuade your Lordships to adopt. The defence would look at Article 10.2 of the convention, which concerns freedom of expression. It is interesting that in Section 12(4) of the
448
Human Rights Act 1998 Parliament has told the courts to pay particular attention to any aspect of freedom of expression that comes before them. I am far from sure that a jury, if it were asked to decide on which side of the line a particular statement, article or website falls, would find it all easy to be satisfied that there was a criminal intent to stir up hatred. That would true even if hatred were described by the judge in extreme terms, which is what the Attorney-General told us would happen.
Therefore, there is a very narrow gap in the criminal law. On the one side is existing incitement legislation and common law; on the other, the constraints of Article 10.2. I seriously wonder whether we have reached the stage where we could identify something that would bridge that gap.
I am sure that other noble Lords will disagree with me and I rather think that the Home Office does too. because it persists with its clause in the 2001 Bill. However, I am sad to say that we cannot rely on the draft framework decision on racism and xenophobia. The Select Committee paid particular attention to that. When we discussed it, we thought that it would provide the basis for the kind of legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would have introduced. It seems to have died a death and it is unfortunate that we can no longer rely on it.
I appreciate that I have spoken for a long time. I shall deal quickly with the final two chapters of the report, which address hate crime and aggravation. Is the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, really happy with the present situation? There are at least three regimes. First, there are ordinary crimes, which can be aggravated, including those which carry a life sentence. In them, the judge can simply take account of aggravating factors. Secondly, there is a new set of offences, which were introduced by the Criminal Justice Act of last year. Under those, factors such as hostility towards sexual orientation or disability were made aggravating factors, but not part of the offence. They therefore overlap the general jurisdiction of a judge to deal with aggravating factors. Thirdly, there are other offences, not including those which carry a life sentence, which have had their maximum penalties increased. They include offences relating to racial hatred and now to religious hatred under Section 39 of the 2001 Act. The difficulty with the latter offences is that a racial or religious motivation must be proved to the jury. That is not easy and it is not the best way to introduce the subject of telling the jury about previous convictions.
Now that we have a serious and comprehensive set of sentencing guidelines, I suggest to the Minister that we should rather go back to square one and abandon those haphazard and rather individual approaches to aggravated sentences. We should allow courts to get on with what the Court of Appeal has been doing for some time and set up a comprehensive system whereby aggravating factors of that kind are taken into account in all sentencing, including the tariff for lifers.
The Home Secretary said that he did not want to see "gestureism". I should like to see a lot of the clutter cleared away from this subject. The courts should be left to pass sentence on the basis of what is before

449
them; namely, the offence, previous convictions and everything they know about, without trying to make the jury convict on a specific racial issue. I feel that the sentencing guidelines will be able adequately to deal with that. The machinery is now in place to allow it.
However, at the end of the debate, I anticipate that the noble Baroness will say that the Home Office will not be doing anything at all. She will say that it will not repeal the blasphemy legislation or reintroduce the clause dropped from the 2001 Act and that we will not be allowed to enjoy the process of seeing whether the law works in practice. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Report of the Religious Offences Committee on Religious Offences in England and Wales (HL Paper 95)—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am delighted that this report is finally being discussed in your Lordships' House. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that it is good to see so many noble Lords taking part in the debate who are not members of the Select Committee. I am particularly glad to sec my noble friend Lady Uddin once more hack in action.
I declare an interest as a member of the Select Committee on Religious Offences, so ably chaired by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I thank him not only for his chairing of the committee, but also for his comprehensive introduction today. He has instructed me to be brief and, as an obedient committee member, I shall take heed. In doing so, I will attempt to draw out a couple of fundamental dilemmas from the many dilemmas with which the committee grappled. These relate to the protection of people rather than beliefs and the issue of free speech.
I must say that this committee was one of the most informed, enlightened and dedicated I have ever worked on. The exchange of views was stimulating, respectful and lively. As we say in our conclusions to the report, our deliberations went further than discussing laws such as blasphemy and other common statute laws. We ranged over the,
"nature of religion in today's society and the changes in that society over the last half century, both in the numbers who follow other than the Christian faith, those who reject religious belief, and those whose religious faith is usually expressed privately".
We were agreed that any further legislation should cover all faiths or those of no faith.
Today, I want to reflect on some of the points raised by the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society, in which I declare an interest as a patron. It was heartening to see a briefing for the debate prepared jointly by the British Humanist Association, the British Muslim Research Centre and Justice. Collaborative working across many organisations was evident also in our deliberations as a committee.
450
I should first state why I am a humanist. I believe in ethical stances. I believe that people should be encouraged to lead good and responsible lives. I believe that we should treat others with fairness and dignity. I believe in human rights and democracy. I respect the rights of others to faith or religion even though I have none myself. I respect many of the tenets of various religions—those which exhort fairness, forgiveness, mercy and respect for others; what philosophers call "the considerate way of life's. In this context, that covers race, religion and human rights, both inside and outside the law, and they are featured in our discussions.
In its submission to the Select Committee, the British Humanist Association stated that:
"The blasphemy law protects beliefs, not people. It is right, subject to safeguards, for society through its laws to protect individuals and groups within it from hatred and attack, it is quite wrong to extend the protection of the law to propositions, creeds and truth-claims".
It goes on to express opposition to legal constraints on vigorous debates, including satire, mockery and derision, about beliefs and doctrines, religious or otherwise. It sees a clear distinction between this and incitement to religious hatred; that is, hatred of individual persons on grounds of their religious or other beliefs. The distinction between beliefs and persons is fundamental.
The National Secular Society, in considering offence to feelings, states:
"The use of the criminal law to prohibit offending the sensibilities or feelings of particular groups in society is inherently problematic, creating as it does insurmountable issues of legal uncertainty and imposing a major 'chilling effect' on free speech, in other words, self censorship".
I have briefly touched on what seems to me as a humanist fundamental problems with which we as a committee struggled. What are laws for? Can law justifiably protect certain individuals but not others because of belief? What constitutes free speech? I have to say that the Select Committee, all along, was supportive of the rights of those who do not hold religious belief as well as those who do.
It will not surprise your Lordships to learn that we found gaps and inconsistencies in laws. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, mentioned those. Perhaps we simply have to learn to live with this. I would prefer a more vigorous approach, more clarity and more emphasis on people rather than beliefs. What was clear in our interviews and in the written submissions to the committee was that people of all persuasions could hold a debate with mutual regard, recognising that differences need to be resolved.
The briefing from the British Humanist Association, the Muslim Research Centre and Justice points out that in eliminating gaps in the law on religious hatred, this would not,
"infringe disproportionately on the right to freedom of expression; and potential abuse of relevant legislation can be countered by effective safeguards".
Can the Minister say how the Government's response to the Select Committee's report will result in action? I look forward to her response, and I admire her immense stamina.
3.46 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I speak as a member of the Select Committee. The topic it had to address was unusually difficult but unusually interesting. I pay a warm tribute to my colleagues on the committee—to their wisdom, their warmth and their tolerance in our debate. I also pay tribute to the endless patience, good humour, charm and vast and awe-inspiring expertise of the noble Viscount, our chairman.
Like the noble Viscount, I do not believe there is any need for the abolition of existing law. However, unlike him, I believe that there is a case for new legislation. In considering any legislation in the area of religious belief, I was aware that over the centuries our society has evolved, slowly and organically, a balance between the religious and the secular. Despite the terrifying current events which may in the long term threaten that balance, bringing religion back to the centre of geopolitical events, most of our fellow citizens seem happy to have the balance left to develop in peace at its own pace. Certainly, there is no public demand for intervention from Government or Whitehall.
Echoes of the more religious society of earlier days still remain in our times and in our laws and can sometimes surprise us by their power. For 21st century England and Wales, it may seem odd to couple together religion and criminal law in any way, as freedom of religion and speech have been such integral parts of the value on which our society is based. But although they may not be widely known or used, there are still many facets of extant criminal law which relate to religion. You could, for example, find yourself in danger of criminal conviction because of things written, said or even drawn in pictures which offend against the common law of blasphemy, even though, as our chairman said, it is unlikely ever to be used again. In theory, you could find yourself committing a criminal offence under the 19th century Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act if you exhibit "riotous, violent or indecent behaviour" in any Church of England cathedral, church or chapel, or in any certified place of religious worship.
Laws relating to religion must strike the difficult balance between the rights of one citizen over the rights of another and the balance of one freedom against another. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated into our domestic law the European Convention and gave us some absolute rights such as the right to protection of life, but most are qualified or limited because of that necessary balance between the rights and freedoms of one citizen against the rights and freedoms of another, or indeed the rights of individual citizens balanced against the need of the state to limit those rights in order to govern.
This comes into sharp focus in the question of the law relating to incitement to religious hatred and making that a criminal offence, where we must balance the freedom of conscience and religion in Article 9 against Article 10, which enshrines the right to freedom of expression.
452
Here is my favourite example, which illustrates the difficulty: let us suppose that I am sitting at Cambridge High Table, enjoying a lively conversation with a learned historian about the place of religion in history. He makes the point, certainly tenable, that religion has been responsible throughout European history for much of the conflict, torture, abuse of civil liberties and curtailment of freedom of thought and speech. Is he inciting those around him to religious hatred? Could his remarks then constitute a criminal offence? Leaving aside whether anyone would wish to report him, on some interpretations it could be possible that his words would be found to constitute a criminal offence. Surely we need to pause before taking even the smallest step towards such a damaging curtailment of freedom of speech.
Parliament. therefore, was right in asking the Government in 2001 to think again before creating this potentially dangerous criminal offence. Instead, our committee was asked to consider whether an offence could be created that did not breach the Article 10 right to freedom of expression, and also to consider whether some existing criminal laws, such as the blasphemy law or the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860, needed abolishing. At least, I believe, there may be some need to amend or extend them in the case of blasphemy to include other religions, perhaps most particularly the Muslim religion.
I said earlier that there was no great public demand for alteration of the existing law. Among the witnesses from whom our committee received evidence, however, there is a great disparity of views as to what should be changed, and whether any change is necessary. Some witnesses represent those who feel that the time has come for our country to abandon its religious heritage and become overtly secular. At the other end there are those who wish to preserve the law exactly as it is, with protection for the Christian religion and none for other faiths. Either of these extremes runs the risk of tilting the delicately evolved secular and religious balance of our society.
Religion is more than faith. The third group, perhaps representing the majority opinion now in this country, is happy to see the multi-faith nature of our society reflected in our law, with protection for the faith of all citizens, but wishes also to see respect for the Christian character of our national identity and the cultural, historical and constitutional roots of England and Wales. Many of that majority are not regular churchgoers—some might even hesitate to call themselves Christian—but they feel nevertheless a deep sense that their national and cultural identity is bound up with what has been for centuries the national religion. It is not only Christians who have this underlying sense of national identity with their religion. In evidence to the Select Committee, the Commission for Racial Equality said:
"For many ethnic minority communities there is a close relation between race and religion, and identity through faith is as important as identity through racial origin."

453
The law on blasphemy provides perhaps the quintessential example of the difficulty of tampering with existing law. It is common law, so not enshrined in statute, and lawyers themselves disagree about what it says. It is clear that it protects the essence of the faith and not its adherents, but for thousands of people—and it may well be millions—that law forms part of what has been described as the "sacred canopy" of our nation, offering protection to all Christians, certainly, and to those who sympathise with the Christian religion, but also believed by many of other faiths to be an expression of our abhorrence of those who would vilify what others hold sacred. It is therefore seen, perhaps wrongly but nevertheless importantly, as offering protection to all people of faith against abuse.
There is a temptation to suppose that it would be simple to extend the law against incitement to racial hatred and include incitement to religious hatred. There is, though, a danger in assuming a clear parallel between the two. Being offensive to or about people on the basis of their race is patently wrong, because none of us can change the race to which we belong. Religion, however, is a personal choice. Persuasion by those who thought a choice ill-advised might change my mind and allegiance. Evangelism, of whatever creed, rests on that assumption. We may find some evangelising intrusive and tedious, but should we make that criminal?
Although it is apparent that I am no lawyer, I find myself in agreement with the correspondent who wrote to me from a multi-racial and peaceful county in England, saying that a new law on religious hatred would be likely to stir people up, emphasises conflicts where none existed, and encourage litigation, so making matters worse, not better. Nevertheless, some protection for followers of all religions and no religion, and for the sacred objects and places of all religions, should be enshrined in law. I say it is up to the lawyers, working with, but not beyond, the pace of social opinion, to find words that will offer protection against wilful and malicious offence against people because of their faith or against their sacred beliefs and objects. Legislation on these lines must stop short of criminalising what Lord Scarman called "decent and temperate language", the language of academic debate, leaving my imaginary High Table historian to be spared.
I would like to end with the words of an international student, on a Master of Theology course at London University. He wrote in his dissertation:
"The doctrine of human rights is man's attempt at exercising his responsibility as God's steward on Earth, in that it seeks to challenge all the injustices that distort the image of God in man. It is an attempt to establish a social condition where there are harmonious and peaceful relations among the people of the world, and where people are able to realise their full potential as God created I hem."
I can find no better words to describe the exercise in which legislators need to be engaged, as we seek to balance the freedom of faith and expression and, while so doing. to preserve, as we daily pray here,
"the peace and tranquillity of the realm".
3.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich: M y Lords, I am grateful to the Select Committee and to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for this comprehensive and helpful report that laid out the issues so clearly. I was interested in his introductory speech. which seemed to throw another light on the report. Finding our way around that in this debate will be interesting. I regret that my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who was a member of the committee, is unable to take part in the debate today. I know that he would have made some vigorous contributions, and we shall miss his robust presence.
I sympathise with the committee for not being able to bring forward an agreed set of proposals in relation to religious offences legislation. From my own experience of the last years on the debate on sexuality and the Anglican communion, it is difficult enough to find a consensus in one religious system. never mind finding an inter-faith consensus, as my postbag reminds me more or less daily. Having said, that, the work of the committee, and the publication of the evidence submitted to it, has helped to focus people's minds. It has encouraged, subsequent to the report, more inter-faith discussion. Most of the original evidence and oral evidence was from representatives of particular faith groups, but more is now emerging from inter-faith conversation, and this obviously is essential to any sense of consensus.
What common ground is there? First and foremost, discussion has highlighted the considerable and widespread concern about acts if religious hatred, in terms of attacks, threats of attack and various forms of incitement, including publications. It has been said in a number of quarters that things have gone quieter since the first responses to 11 September, but it depends on what your definition of "quieter" is. The message coming clearly from many faith communities, and expressed strongly by inter-faith groups, is that attack and the threat of attack on religious groups and individuals is a daily concern. It is dangerous to base a definition of "quieter" on the low number of prosecutions or on fewer newspaper reports. Experience is that a high proportion of incidents go unreported. But it is not difficult to see why that should be so: either because the chances of catching, let alone convicting, the perpetrators is seen as low. or simply because of the fear that involvement by the authorities may escalate a local situation and more obviously identify a target. The point is that at present all religious groups are reflecting a common concern about the level of incidence and the continuing fear associated with the threat. Things might well seem quieter but that does not mean that nothing is happening.
In the Select Committee report, the widespread concern expressed by religious groups is the basis for urging a law that specifically addresses religious hatred and incitement to religious hatred. The report argues that existing civil and criminal law addresses most situations cited in the evidence given to it. But the

455
Select Committee recognises that there is a gap in the law, particularly if current laws on religious offences are repealed, but de facto a very small gap.
Having read the responses to the Select Committee report, particularly some of the inter-faith statements, I suggest that it is not the size of the gap but its significance that is the issue for those who feel vulnerable. That is probably most clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Jewish and Muslim communities argue for the retention of the law of blasphemy. Although they recognise that in practice it applies only to the Christian religion, and possibly only to the tenets of the Church of England, the apparent umbrella effect of that legislation is significant to them. They do not want it removed unless something tailor-made, covering all religions, is put in its place.
Turning full-circle, the common ground seems to be the desire that legislation should apply equally to all faiths and religious groups. The issue of incitement to religious hatred needs to be specifically addressed in law. If that happened, concerns about the retention of the law on blasphemy would diminish and it would be allowed to go in the direction indicated by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville.
There is a second concern about another potential gap in legislation that would emerge if most of the existing law on religious offences were repealed as the report suggests. Again, I am interested in the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in introducing the debate. I shall also be very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, says. I tread hesitantly into this area, but if I make my point, noble Lords can tell me later where I have got it wrong.
The particular concern, which has already been touched on, relates to desecration and the disturbance of religious services. If it is assumed that those will be covered by Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, a gap seems to emerge in relation to offences currently covered by Section 2 of the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860. I understand that the Public Order Act does not criminalise desecration as such. Even if the conduct in question could be said to be "threatening, abusive or insulting", it would have to be committed,
"within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".
In other words, it would not cover certain kinds of desecration—that which took place when no one was present, and when the desecration caused offence but not criminal damage. In terms of religious sensibilities, in a fairly highly charged general atmosphere I do not think that that is a marginal question. Perhaps, therefore, the 1860 Act could be left as it is. However, I am sure that we shall hear more from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for this helpful report. I hope that the debate that he has stimulated through the Select Committee and its report will provide a constructive basis for taking
456
matters forward. I should add that the communities likely to be most affected also feel a sense of urgency, triggered by their daily experience.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I, too, thank warmly the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and his committee for a very distinguished and thoughtful report. Some might ask where are the recommendations. Sometimes in politics there is too much rush to make recommendations. It is important first to do the reconnaissance. This is a superb piece of intellectual reconnaissance, for which the whole House should be grateful.
I declare an interest: I was the son of a Nonconformist father and a Church of Scotland mother, and have been led with great satisfaction into the Church of England by my wife. There I find myself very much at home when it is being what I believe the Church of England should be about: inclusive and tolerant.
The report refers to the undoubted fact that we live in a multi-faith society. I have been troubled in recent weeks by the debate about whether we are a multicultural society. I do not understand what point is being made. Given my background, even within the broader context of Christianity, there is no doubt that we live in a multicultural society. The cultural implications of being a committed member of the Church of Scotland, or a Baptist, or a Church of England adherent, are different and far-reaching. Of course we live in a multicultural society. We should rejoice in that, because that is part of living, and the fullness of living is recognising the richness of diversity and creativity.
If we live in a multi-faith and multicultural society, it does raise problems. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for saying that it raises problems and challenges about the future place of the Church of England in that multi-faith culture. If we have respect for all religions, humanism and the rest equally, it is, to say the least, a little questionable whether special attributes in our society should rest with one particular denomination of one religion.
I come down firmly in favour of a society based on human rights and mutual respect. That should be our starting point. The right to beliefs and convictions, not least faith, humanism, atheism, agnosticism, should be taken as seriously as the right to property and its protection under law. My concern is that in our tradition in Britain we give a great deal of attention in the law to protection of property, but the protection of people's sensitivities, convictions, and intellectual positions is at least equally important. The noble Viscount drew our attention to the existence of—I think his words were—the good deal of law about, and said that before we rushed off to make new law it was just as well to look at it. I wonder whether he would agree that the existing law in these areas has grown like Topsy and is a bit confusing, particularly for the layman.
In the adjacent area of race relations, this is of course true. As the report emphasises, there are special provisions—I am glad that they, at least, are there—

457
for Jews and Sikhs, but not for Christians or Muslims, because they are held not to have a common ethnic origin. I am not sure that it is as simple as that. I am never sure where the issue of conversion fits into this approach. Some are now arguing that a special provision should be made for Islam because of the de facto situation with which we are confronted.
I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we are considering this issue at the moment in our deliberations. I have some anxiety about that proposition. If people of the Islamic faith are not enjoying their human rights as they should be enjoying them in our society, that issue needs to be addressed as that. However, to try to reclassify Islam as a means of overcoming it, when we all know that there are people of different ethnic origins in the Islamic faith. seems to be unsound. I am open to persuasion, but as of now, I am not convinced.
It is high time for a comprehensive review of the law in these areas. We often say that one of the great things about the operation of the law is that justice should always be seen to be done and not just done. If justice is to be seen to be done, the law must be clear and the layman must be able to understand it. If there is confusion or obscurity in the law, that makes it difficult to carry maximum public conviction in all circumstances about justice being done.
I repeat that the objective that I hold is that, ideally, legal enforcement of human rights as a whole should be the basis, and we ought to be wary of sectoral legislation for special rights, because this could too easily lead to a perceived hierarchy of rights, which would be unfortunate. The Select Committee has sensitively touched on this issue with its reference to hatred. The issue is hatred; and hatred matters, whether it is against someone of a particular religious conviction, or against a homosexual, or against an asylum seeker. I thought that that was a good point made by the Select Committee. We must examine more closely the fundamental issue of the human rights that people should be able to enjoy and the safeguards that protect them as the individuals that they are, in making up our total society. If we took that kind of approach, the rather archaic preoccupation with blasphemy would quickly find its own level, as the right reverend Prelate and others have indicated.
I finish with the observation that, whether one is talking about race relations or about religious tolerance, the law of itself is not the answer. The answer is to work and provide political leadership inspired by the principles of inclusiveness, tolerance and respect. It is when we start using the language of exclusiveness that we start dashing to the law to protect ourselves from the ugly consequences of the culture that we are generating. We need the law, but the law should be there to put the seal on and underwrite the culture of our society. If we really care about such issues, we must look to the quality of the leadership in all our political parties with regard to the kind of society that we believe in and the fact that all people in our society should be able to enjoy their rights to the full and not suffer in any way.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I share most of his views, though not all of them. On the last view that he expressed so well—the law is not itself, of itself, the answer—I could not agree with him more. I agree with the balance of the assessment made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. We do not have to bridge that gap. The Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, should be allowed to die a painless death.
As the offence of incitement to religious hatred was removed from the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill by an amendment moved by me, I have an obvious interest to declare. My opposition to that offence was and remains based on three simple reasons, reflected in the noble Lord's speech. First, there is, to put it very straight, absolutely no need for a specific offence, as any relevant conduct could be dealt with under extant law, under Clause 39 of the Bill as it was. which enabled the passing of harsher sentences if the offence was aggravated by religious hatred, building on a system set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for increased sentences for certain offences aggravated by religious hatred. As has been said, there is also the common law on incitement.
The second reason is that it is not so easy to define religion for such purposes. In that context, I was rather foxed by the speech made by my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark, although I am sure t hat she was right. I could not understand the distinction between faith, religion and doctrine. I was totally out of my depth. Religion, whatever it is, is not so easy to define for these purposes; nor is it so easy to determine what is an expression of hatred and what is a justifiable expression and exercise of the freedom of speech, as set out in Article 10.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The third reason why I opposed the offence was that the proposals in a document produced by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General were not to the point. However, in a spirit of amity, I now withdraw the assertion that I made that they were meretricious, as that caused unintended offence. That is the basis on which that amendment was introduced and on which, before the report was published, the House accepted the removal by a substantial majority.
My somewhat simplistic approach appears to have commended itself, by and large, to certain members of the Select Committee, but I am not pretending that this was a unanimous report. However, the report was a monumental exercise of academic importance and an exposition which clarified an extremely complex subject in the light of a mountain of evidence. It is a tribute to the chairman and to all members who served on that committee.
On reading that report, I changed my mind in respect of blasphemy. I thought that it was otiose and therefore should not be retained. But on reading the report, there appears to be a strongly arguable case as it also affords protection for the other faiths. On that basis, I have changed my mind. But there is reason to

459
think that Christian Voice may have misunderstood the constitutional position. I thought that my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark put it so elegantly; that is, the balance between the religious and the secular. That is precisely what Christian Voice seemed to ignore, albeit, one accepts, that by an exchange of oaths on the coronation of King Edgar in 973, the Church in England, under the aegis of the Church of Rome, became an estate of the realm. But things have changed since 973.
In conclusion, the Government's response to the report seems to be incredibly wishy-washy. They are equivocal as they stand by retention of the offence. All Governments stand by whatever they have done, whether they are right or wrong. It is perfectly understandable, but there is no reasoned support for the retention of that position. They then concede that further debate is requisite. For the reasons that I have given, it was inevitable that I should take note of the report with an expression of profound gratitude, as indeed I do.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Bhatia: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a Muslim and as chairman of the British Muslim Research Centre. I was also a member of the Select Committee that produced the report for your Lordship's debate today. The report highlights an important issue on which I should like to elaborate, not as a Muslim and not as person from the ethnic minority communities, but as a citizen of this country and as a parliamentarian.
Being a member of the Select Committee, and having seen the final report being debated today, I became increasingly aware that Parliament creates new laws to ensure that democratic principles are upheld and that all citizens and institutions are required to fall within the important parameters of fairness, equality and human rights. Indeed, in order to ensure that that is translated so that it affects the real daily lives of our citizens, the Government have created institutions such as the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission to be the watchdogs with powers to prosecute those people, institutions and corporations that breach the law. Finally, all new legislation has to be certified as compliant with EU human rights legislation, to which we are a signatory.
Despite all these safeguards, I have come to realise that there is no protection for citizens of this country when the state itself passes legislation which does not treat all its citizens equally, which does not protect all citizens equally and fairly, thereby leaving some in a dangerous and vulnerable position, even to the extent that their lives are threatened.
Let me give some examples of how different laws and statutes have created the most undesirable position highlighted in the report. We have the law on blasphemy which goes back over a few hundred years. It protects only one sect of one faith. I should like to put on the record that even if a law protects only one
460
faith I would not want to replace or repeal it. It is my view that at least one faith is protected against vilification or attacks by profane and ignorant people who are at times incited by extremists. I believe that in repealing the law on blasphemy, we would hurt the feelings of millions of our citizens who genuinely believe that the law provides them with a canopy of protection against the vilification of their deeply held beliefs.
But in keeping the law in place, we are creating inequalities in law by not being able to protect other faiths. It is obvious from the report that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to reframe the existing blasphemy legislation to protect the sanctity of all faiths. If that is the case, I feel that it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that new legislation is passed by Parliament to provide the same canopy of protection for all faiths.
Under the race relations legislation there exists yet another anomaly and inequality. Only two faith communities are protected against incitement to religious hatred and discrimination. I hasten to add that this legislation protects the people and not the sacred elements of the faith or the deity, as under the law on blasphemy. I should also like to put on the record the fact that I do not in any way seek the removal of the protections afforded to the two faith groups. It is better to have the people of at least two faith groups protected than none. But any law that chooses to protect two visible faith groups against discrimination, but fails to offer such protections to other visible and demonstrably discriminated against faith groups, is in contempt of the principle of equality.
Paragraph 41 of the Select Committee states:
"The law of blasphemy is discriminatory. It prevents (say) a Muslim from speaking about the sacred entities of Christianity in ways that would not be criminal if a Christian were to speak in similar terms about Islam".
Paragraph 44 goes on to observe:
"It is difficult to justify a law which protects the sacred entities of Christianity but does not offer similar protection to other faiths".
Parliament and the Government cannot be found to be discriminating against some of their own citizens. As matters stand, we are possibly in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and, indeed, of our own democratic principles of justice, fairness and equality.
I turn now to the issues of human rights and freedom of speech and expression. Like most Members of this House and those of another place, I want to be sure that, in creating a new law, we do not stifle freedom of expression. It is a cherished part of our democracy and is indeed the bulwark against any attempt by the people or Government to stop anyone from expressing their right of free speech.
However, as has been shown in the report, freedom of expression under human rights law is a qualified freedom. It carries with it duties and responsibilities and, therefore, in framing any new legislation on religious incitement, we will be able to protect the people of all faiths against hatred and incitement and yet preserve the balance and not breach the provisions

461
on freedom of expression in human rights law. I remind noble Lords that the issue of human rights and freedom of expression were not raised or even considered a hindrance when two faith groups were protected under the race relations legislation.
I turn briefly to the evidence given by various people to the Select Committee. I was most struck by the evidence given by the law enforcement agencies such as the Attorney-General, the director of the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the Home Office, all of whom clearly stated that there is a gap in the law. They would like to have a law in their armoury to enable them to protect all faith groups in the United Kingdom.
I want to bring to your Lordships' attention some key parts of the report to remind ourselves of what has been given to us during our investigations and consultation. Paragraph 13 of the report states:
"It is, however, important to recognise that continued tranquillity depends not only upon continued mutual tolerance but, equally, on equality of protection from intolerance oh the basis of religion or belief or no belief".
In paragraph 15 the report states:
"The general complaint at present, and particularly from the Muslim community, is hostility which, while racist in origin, is often expressed in religious terms that are not at present illegal. This concern is increased by the perception of the fact that other faith groups are protected from hostility (by the blasphemy laws, race relations and public order legislation), while theirs is not".
Paragraph 15 goes on to state:
"A key element of the Muslim perception of their marginalisation under the law is that they do not enjoy the widening of the definition of 'racial group' by case law, which some religions clearly, and in their view rightly, do. One result of this is that, when the Public Order Act 1986, Part III, created new criminal offences of incitement to racial hatred, it automatically applied to these groups. but not to Muslims and other faiths which draw support from more than one national or ethnic group".
Still continuing on paragraph 15, the report states:
"This is seen as a most damaging state into which the law has progressed. The Muslims certainly think so, and the Attorney-General, the Home Office, the Police and the DPP agreed that it is undesirable. If Sikhs and Jews are to be protected from incitement to religious hatred and if this is considered to be a legitimate restriction of free speech, the same standard should be applied to Muslims, Christians and other faith communities, otherwise there is clearly a breach of Article 9 combined with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights".
Paragraph 137 of the Select Committee report concludes:
"We support the protection of everyone's right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs, under Article 9 of the European Convention … and we consider that the ordinary law gives that protection. We agree however that there is a gap in the law as it stands. We have examined whether there needs to be any additional protection either for believers as a class, or for the objects connected with their beliefs. There is no consensus as to whether such protection should exist and, if so, the precise forms they should take, but we do agree that the civil and criminal law should afford the same protection to people of all faiths, and of none".
The Select Committee Report has thrown up a number of interesting models that we could adopt and I would suggest that the Humanist Association's proposed draft on page 33, paragraph 112, is one that we should consider.
462
In enacting new legislation, we will not only be protecting faith groups, but also in no uncertain terms signalling to those bigots and prejudiced extremists that Parliament has drawn clear lines as to what is permissible and acceptable and what is not.
Delay in legislating on this issue is causing a great deal of concern, anxiety, fear and loss of trust in the Government of this country and indeed in its democratic processes. When sections of the population feel that there are different laws for different people, we have the making of an unstable society. Sooner or later, unrest, instability and violence will manifest themselves. That is the lesson history has taught us.
We have seen what happened in Europe in the past century when racial prejudice, unchecked, unchallenged, cost millions of lives. The recent events in Yugoslavia are a stark reminder that religious bigotry and prejudice have to be dealt with at the right time.
Despite all these demands, I find it difficult to accept the response to this report of the Secretary of State for the Home Office, at paragraph 14 on page 2, when he says:
"The Government has no immediate plans to reintroduce a proposal for such an offence following its withdrawal from the 2001 Bill, but will consider doing so if an opportunity arises in the future".
I would like to put before your Lordships this plea: is the Home Office waiting for dozens of people to be killed, to die, before you move to legislate for this? What is this prevarication, waiting for the right time to legislate? I suggest—I beg the House—that the moment is now for us to move forward to legislate in this very clearly defined gap that has been very clearly shown up by the Select Committee.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, which distresses me very much because I have great respect for him.
I welcome the report and the way in which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, introduced it. I played a small part, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in strongly opposing the introduction of the religious hatred clause when the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill was being debated. I am still not happy that the additional punishment part of it has survived. In hoping that the main clause would be deleted, we did not pay attention to it and the extra part survived. I hope that will be removed as well.
Some of the grounds on which I opposed it have been covered already in the debate today. I think that while people need protection—and all people need equal protection—their beliefs do not. All beliefs are equally valid and I do not see why some beliefs should be privileged over others just because they involve some concept of God.
I was born a Hindu but I am no longer a believer; I am an atheist. I very much regret the recent raising of religion to a higher level in our political discourse, especially since 9/11, when it seems that religion is seen to be the cause of all problems as well as their solution.

463
We should disassociate some of the hatred that has been expressed towards Muslims and other communities and make it clear that the issue is not religion. The people who insult Muslims, Hindus, Jews or Sikhs are not making a theological or religious point; they are making a political point which is very akin to a racial point. But, because we have defined "racist" in a particular way, we cannot extend the legislation to all communities, faith or non-faith. I am very much puzzled that two communities—Jews and Sikhs—enjoy this particular protection under current race law. I have never been able to understand why and I have argued in debates that it is an anomaly.
But I do not think that anomaly should be used to extend that protection to other particular communities. By doing that we would place those communities in greater danger than they are in now. The brunt of my comment at the time was that if Muslims were singled out and afforded special protection along with Sikhs and Jews, it would do nothing but harm the Muslim community. I strongly believe that.
The whole point is that we should not treat communities as faith communities; we should treat people as people. If we do that and there are sufficient safeguards in the present legislation for their lives and liberty and their right to profess their faith in circumstances that they would like, we do not need to protect beliefs. I do not think that any beliefs—including my own—are of a sufficiently unchallengeable nature to enjoy the protection of the law. Everyone should be able to express their opinions; after that, having expressed one's beliefs, the common law and the criminal law can take over in relation to what one can and cannot do. I do not believe that we should privilege beliefs as such.
That is why I welcome the report of the committee. It clearly puts forward issues which are legally technical in nature. The committee has pointed out the various aspects of inciting violence and hatred and blasphemy and so on but, quite rightly, it has not been able to come to any strong conclusions because this is a subject on which a strong conclusion either way could do nothing but harm.
I also agree with the general tenor of what the noble Viscount who chaired the committee said. We should be careful before we start adding new laws to the existing vast body of law. We should really be looking at what we can eliminate from it. I will not take any more of your Lordships' time: I greatly welcome the report. My race is not a matter of my choice, but my religion is. Many people change religions.
The paradox is that if there are exclusive religions that do not proselytise much and therefore their coverage is restricted, it is easier to identify those religions with races, as happened with Sikhs and Jews. If a religion is universalist and recruits people across different races, that religion would be disadvantaged, because we could never say that Christians or Muslims are a race. The Muslim religion is so universal that a variety of so-called races have been converted to Islam.
464
I know that this is not going to happen, but I am famous for saying things that are not going to happen; I urge them all the time. I would very much like some clever lawyer to find a way in which the current protection that exists—the anomaly over Jews and Sikhs—could be removed so that we returned to a universal principle whereby people are protected but faiths are not.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, the excellent Select Committee report on religious offences has analysed in depth and with clarity the issues in our law relating to religious offences. That analysis will greatly facilitate the preparation of any future legislation. The noble Lords who have already spoken have covered all the relevant issues. I wish briefly to touch on the issue of the timing of future legislation relating to incitement to religious hatred.
As my noble friend Lord Bhatia pointed out, all our main enforcement agencies, the Select Committee itself and the Home Office agree that there is a gap in our law that protects Sikhs and Jews but no other faiths or beliefs. When a gap is identified it must surely be closed, particularly when citizens and communities are placed at risk by it.
As a Jew, and by training a human rights lawyer, I postulated to myself what my reaction would have been if there was a law in the United Kingdoms that protected Muslims but excluded Jews from its protection at a time when Jews needed protection. I would have been outraged and felt excluded, angry, nervous—I suspect—and disappointed in British justice. I would have felt unjustly deprived of protection to which I was entitled as a British citizen. It would not have begun to satisfy me to be told that it was difficult to draft such legislation and that the Government would consider getting around to it sometime.
If it is complex and difficult to draft such legislation, the sooner the Government start work on the drafting the better. Such legislation is particularly urgent at the present time when Al'Qaeda terrorism could lead to a backlash against the British Muslim community. That community should feel and see that Government are doing whatever possible to protect them against such a backlash, including starting work urgently to put in place appropriate legislation.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. I hesitated to venture into this debate about religion, and I tread with trepidation, but having listened to the debate so far, I have convinced myself of my place here. I would love to have been a lawyer and been part of the group who discussed these matters. I can imagine the prolonged debates that I would have had with my colleagues, always trying to ensure that a woman's point of view was put forward. I am pleased that that point of view has not been taken up today and that I am left having to say something that has not been said before. It is a great privilege be able to contribute to the debate.

465
I went through the report a little hit yesterday. I apologise for not having done it justice, but to maintain the convention of the House and to please noble Lords I shall at least mention a line. The concluding chapter refers to the fact that the United Kingdom is not a secular state. In light of that comment, I feel comfortable raising the matters that I am about to raise.
What does it mean to have the protection of law? I have been in the House of Lords for six years, and I ought to know better—but I obviously did not, in relation to the concept of religious offences. At its simplest, it is about being assured of receiving equal rights and treatment before law and in the institutional fabric of the society in which we live. I almost wanted to remain seated after I heard the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, speak, because I thought that he had covered everything in a few words, while I will labour to say what I have to say for a number of minutes.
Such protection may impact on not only recourse to law, when attacked or sacked by someone, but also the services. Noble Lords should never forget that I am a social worker at heart. We are referring not only to terrorism, criminality or recourse to law for complex reasons on which lawyers like to prevaricate. We are referring also to people's rights to services, and particularly women's rights to services—and their right not to have their scarves taken oft', to have pigs' trotters thrown at them or their children pulled from their buggies, after which they may say, "This was done to me because I am a Muslim". We are referring to those sorts of measures.
We are talking about something more fundamental and basic; about having the protection of law in cases of religious discrimination. I hesitate to use the word "fanatic", but those of us on the fringes, who are suffering the debates on multiculturalism, have now become fanatics. We would argue that race relations as they have been discussed previously have failed to impact on the lives of the largest minority in the UK—the Muslim community.
It is my contention that British citizens of the Muslim faith are excluded from such equality as they aspire to. Britain is regarded as a country of Christian faiths, where secularity sits very comfortably. I believe that 75 per cent of the electorate describe themselves as of Christian faiths. I find that very comforting. Therefore, debating whether to have protection from religious discrimination is surely an affront to the notion of free speech that we have all talked about today. Rights and protection from religious discrimination should be embedded in our psyche and our law.
I agree that our diversity is evolving. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, very eloquently mentioned something about balance. I would put forward the argument that, while there has been an evolution towards embracing religious faiths as part of society, Muslims—particularly Muslim women—have not been allowed to take part in the evolving nature of faith. We have not been allowed to be comfortable in developing our faith. Many of us who have brought
466
faith with us from another country as part of who we are have not been allowed to develop ourselves or modernise our thinking. We have been sat on or oppressed. Any reaction that we have is often defensive. In a fair society that evolution should be allowed and it is not. In a fair society legal protection for an individual is taken as read. Affording protection against religious discrimination should therefore be a matter of natural justice and of rights.
There has been some progress in protection: I am not saying that there has not been. European legislation is a case in point, but I am sad that it was not Britain—which has a proud tradition of fairness, equality and race relations law—which led on that and that we have had to rely on Europeans to dictate that legislation. Perhaps that indicates my position on Europe. Of course, much work has been done. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, and with other noble Lords who have mentioned that bodies such as CRE and other enforcement agencies have said that there is a gap. That gap must be filled. When we are debating whether we live in a free and fair society and whether certain people are suffering, we do not need to go further than to those enforcement agencies that we have brought in by legislation.
Let us move beyond this rushed judgment about whether we need it and take it as read that we do. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who mentioned semantics and throwaway gestures—I am obviously paraphrasing him—was right to say that we do not need to hurry and that we need to look at the matter. But I also agree with the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Bhatia, that we do not have too much time to waste before legislation is proposed and that legislation should be led by our government.
There has been a lot of discussion about impact. I said earlier that I was going to bring in the position of Muslim women in particular. I talked to women's organisations—An-Nisa Women's Society and the Muslim Women's Organisation in Brent—just before I entered the Chamber. I asked what impact it would have on them. I also talked to some of the women who are trying to get into the political process to represent various political parties. There was a consensus. They said that because they are Muslim women they experience barriers, fundamentally because it is simply assumed, for no apparent reason, that Muslim women are somehow barred by their community or their religion from entering politics.
I can speak from experience and may have mentioned this before. I have been in local government politics for more than 10 years and not too long ago it was suggested that if I, as a Muslim woman, were to represent a well established Labour seat it would put it at risk. This experience was about 10 years ago. I have spoken to a number of Muslim women trying to infiltrate political parties now and they say the same thing. They have no recourse to law or to the political parties against that perception. You have to say that perception is two-thirds of the law. Having chaired the government working party on political representation, I know that that has not changed and, if anything, it has worsened, particularly for Muslim women. So

467
there is every reason for considering, in a whole range of ways, why people feel that they are discriminated against, simply because of their religion. There must be some truth in it.
I have gone on a little on a personal level, but I am deeply proud of the tradition in Britain that we honour a just equality for all. We must be able to say something without having to defend our position as British Muslims. I disagree fundamentally with my noble friend Lord Desai that religion is chosen, that it is a matter of choice. I adore him, but I do disagree with him on this. For me, religion was not chosen, it was simply a fact. I was born who I am, and for many of us that is exactly how it is. That is why we cannot separate ourselves from the unequal treatment that many of us have to receive, saying that we receive it as a woman, or because we are incompetent professionally. We feel that we receive it simply because we are Muslim. That sort of feeling has to be respected if we are talking about free speech.
We cannot get away from those men, women and children being and feeling persecuted because of their faith, in whatever form that takes. There is also a certainty that, collectively, Muslims are having to face extreme acts of prejudice without recourse to the law. That is not acceptable.
As a card-carrying Labour member since I was 16 years old—or in fact just before, illegally—I regret that our 1997 manifesto promise, seeking,
"an end to unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists,",
has been lost among the countless dossiers of one kind or another, as well as actions arising out of the various anti-terrorist legislation measures. There is definitely a perception that we are at war against Islam worldwide, so legislation cannot be hidden under criminal or anti-terrorist measures. In the new world order of language, if the Government are not with us, they will be perceived by Muslim communities as against us. They can very quickly dispel this misunderstanding by enacting law which affords such protection. I hope my noble friend the Minister will surprise us with some kind of announcement.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, has articulated the feelings which I think are fairly common among the Muslim community, but ones that we do not very often hear and ones that we particularly welcome coming from Muslim women. I think Muslim women have not found their voice. Perhaps one of the shortcomings of the Select Committee was that it did not have enough evidence that came specifically from women's groups, and particularly from Muslim women's groups.
I begin by paying warm tribute to the chairman of our Select Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—who has already been widely praised, and not just by those who served on the Committee. Without his patience and skill as chairman, we would never have got through the work. We were, as he described in his remarkable speech which opened this debate, made up of many different
468
views. There were eight different religious faiths represented on the committee. The fact that we worked through questions of a more than ordinarily controversial nature without coming to blows—in fact in the spirit of mutual tolerance which we identified as being essential to the continued tranquillity of society—was largely due to his chairmanship. I thank him and pay tribute to his excellent work.
However, I have to express some disappointment. Even though, in accordance with Erskine May, the Government had undertaken to respond to Select Committee reports within six months, it took them eight in this case, and another four have elapsed before time has been found for this debate. Perhaps the Government consider that, as the Committee had made no recommendations, our analysis of the problems could be given a low priority. We think, on the contrary, that there are important questions that need to be addressed by the House, and we have heard a great deal about them this afternoon. On the matters covered by the Religious Offences Bill, there were differences of opinion among the members of the committee, and those are for Parliament to resolve. However, I shall begin with the one matter on which the committee was unanimous, and on which the Government have chosen to move in the wrong direction. It has already been mentioned by the noble Viscount.
In the Criminal Justice Act, the Government added to the list of crimes to which specific kinds of aggravation may be attached, with their own different penalties. While noting the committee's argument that scattering the provisions over several different statutes would lead to complication and inconsistency, the Government believed that the added complexity—although not the inconsistency—could be managed through the sentencing guidelines. The Government argue that, with higher sentences for some aggravated offences, they become triable each way.
However, under our recommendation, those maximums would have been applicable to the basic offences, and the question of whether an offence was aggravated would have been dealt with at the point of sentencing. Therefore, the offences would have become each-way offences, to be dealt with under mode of trial guidelines without having to spell out the aggravating factor in the charge. The Minister has to address that matter. If the Government have gone in the wrong direction, and if our committee was right, we need to begin to think immediately about how to put things back on track.
I welcome the new power that the Attorney-General has had since last September to refer unduly lenient sentences for racially or religiously motivated aggravated assault, criminal damage, public order offences and harassment to the Court of Appeal. However, does that not simply underline the inconsistency of the Government's treatment of aggravation, to which I drew attention when noble Lords discussed the new proposals relating to disability and sexual orientation in Section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act? There was no increase in the penalty for those Section 146 offences, which means

469
that the Attorney-General's new power does not apply to them, as I read it. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong.
The CPS has published the statistics on convictions for religiously aggravated offences between the end of 2001, when the new category came into effect, and 31 March 2003. In those 15 months there were 18 cases, of which seven were discontinued or led to acquittals, one was dropped for insufficient evidence, two led to convictions on the non-aggravated offence, and the remaining eight were convicted on the aggravated charge.
The CPS, recognising perhaps that the public would be surprised by the small numbers, speculated that there might be more cases as publicity led to the issue being taken more seriously. In the 12 months up to the end of March 2003, the number of racially aggravated prosecutions was 3,116, and the conviction rate was 85 per cent. Considering what we know anecdotally of those offences, it may be that some offences identified as racially aggravated were actually religiously motivated, but that the CPS found it easier to use a charge with which it was more familiar.
Under the scheme recommended by the Select Committee, it would be necessary to pin down the aggravation to one category or another only when it came to sentencing. The CPS says that 86 per cent of the cases were identified as racist by the police, and a further 14 per cent by itself. That two-stage analysis would be redundant, because it would be for the judge to decide whether there had been racial or religious aggravation. Also, it may well be that some cases not identified as aggravated by the police or CPS would be picked up at the point of sentencing and dealt with accordingly. With the law as it stands, the judge cannot treat an offence as aggravated, whatever the evidence may be, if it was not part of the charge.
If the difficulties in proving aggravated offences are serious, there are even more problems with incitement to racial hatred, as the DPP explained to the Select Committee. "Hatred" is a strong word and it does not come into play for remarks that are simply derogatory about a particular group. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, lucidly explained, the boundaries of the offence are determined on one side by our freedom of expression obligations under the ECHR and, on the other, by the existing criminal offences of incitement to commit particular offences; for example, incitement to murder under Section 4 of the Offences against the Persons Act 1861. The noble Viscount mentioned the case of the Jamaican imam who was convicted under that provision. As I recall it, he was convicted at the same time of incitement to racial hatred because he called on his flock to kill Hindus and Jews. If he had called on them to kill Christians, he would not have been convicted of that second offence. That underlines the need for examination of the area in between, or "the nutcracker", as the noble Viscount described it.
In a memorandum to your Lordships during proceedings on the anti-terrorism Bill in 2001, the Attorney-General proposed to extend that area in between to religious as well as racial hatred. Logically, we must either implement that proposal or scrap
470
incitement altogether. Otherwise, as several noble Lords have mentioned, it continues to be lawful to incite hatred against Muslims or Christians because they cannot be identified with particular racial groups, while at the same time Jews or Sikhs are protected. The noble Viscount mentioned also the EU Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia, which would have obliged us to treat both racial and religious incitement as equally criminal. He said that that had dropped off the agenda. I understand that the Government have said that they would subscribe to the idea only if there were a consensus to that effect in Parliament. I am not sure how Parliament would express an opinion, but if the Government mean that it has to be an opinion without a dissenting voice, they will never act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, mentioned that her correspondent had suggested that a law of that kind would incite frequent litigation. Of course, it would not, because as with the incitement offence that already exists for racial hatred, the Crown Prosecution Service would have to approve the charge and it would have to be submitted to the Attorney-General. Therefore, there would be few cases of that kind in practice, just as there are few cases of incitement to racial hatred. That is not the argument. The gap is one of perception of people being treated differently. Several noble Lords have already mentioned that.
On blasphemy too, there will always be differences of opinion, as there were among members of the committee. We reviewed the three options of leaving the blasphemy law alone; amending it to cover all religions; or abolishing it. It was clear that although all the members acknowledged that nobody could now be convicted of blasphemy since the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998, some were influenced by,
"the need to respect the deeply held views of a large number of the members of our society".
That was reinforced by a barrage of similar letters from the evangelical lobby in favour of leaving the common law of blasphemy alone as a kind of heritage symbol that would never be used. Some members of the committee were impressed by the census finding that 72 per cent of the population is part of the Christian tradition or identity. That ignored the evidence of dwindling congregations, vanishing vocations and empty collection boxes. Those members—I count the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, among them—were attracted by the idea of the "sacred canopy", hovering protectively over the nation, but which was said to be so delicate that it was at risk of destruction if an unused or unusable law were abolished. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that they wanted to protect people and not beliefs. That was the general sentiment of our debate this afternoon. The noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Joffe, pointed out that the law is discriminatory and that it is surely therefore intolerable for Parliament to leave it as it is.
In the Government's response to the Select Committee's report, they say they have not sought to amend the law on blasphemy in the absence of a consensus on how to proceed. They are happy to accept that the committee's report may be seen as a starting

471
point in the debate, but now is the time for some leadership and not for further procrastination. The committee's report was not the starting point, but a continuation of the discussion that has been going on ever since Lord Coleridge laid down in the case of Ramsay and Foote in 1883 that it was lawful to attack the fundamentals of religion.
The developments which have taken place up to the Gay News case in 1979 were thoroughly rehearsed in the Law Commission's Working Paper No 79 of 1981 and its survey of Offences Against Religion and Public Worship of 1985. The Select Committee relied heavily on those papers and our main contribution was perhaps the analysis of the human rights implications, now far more relevant since the incorporation of the European convention into our domestic law.
The Government's response was equally pusillanimous on the question of the statutory offences, of which the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860 is the only one that some members of the committee thought should be retained. They say it is unclear whether the ECJA addresses conduct which is not covered by other criminal offences, but where the ingredients of the case are known, it was clear that some other charge could have been preferred. The famous case of Peter Tatchell interrupting the service in Canterbury Cathedral is an outstanding example. Indeed, in many other cases, the ECJA was used in tandem with some other charge. In the past two years—2002 and 2003—there was only one charge in each year leading to conviction. As the noble Viscount said, it is impossible to discover, either from the CPS or from the Home Office statistics, what the ingredients of the offences were. But if it is so lightly used, surely it could be safely repealed and we could instead use the other offences which we know are useable in the circumstances.
I must confess to great disappointment that although we have had the debates on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill and on the Religious Offences Bill and now a whole year's work by the Select Committee, we are still no further forward than at the time of the Law Commission's reports of 20 years ago. The balancing of the principles of freedom of expression, mutual tolerance and the protection of faith communities from extremists who would incite religious hatred is not properly achieved by the law as it stands, and it is deplorable that a government who profess to believe in those principles are ducking the opportunity for promoting them.
5.12 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and his colleagues on the committee for their report, produced to the standards of excellence that we in this House, without question, have come to take for granted. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the work he did in the preparation of the Religious Offences Bill.
I suggest that the clarion call of the report is its unequivocal statement that we are not a secular state—a sentiment which I am pleased to note the
472
Government wholly endorse. But this statement recognises that we are, indeed, a multi-faith society and let it not be overlooked that one of those multi-faiths is no faith. I am sure that that has been an inspiration to the committee in producing this admirable document.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has left us in no doubt that he does not want to see any repeals and that he does not want to see any new legislation. He also states that the problem of blasphemy is almost insoluble. There have been passionate pleas in dissent by, among others, the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Joffe, speaking from a lawyer's perspective. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, made a most interesting comment on the role of Muslim women in this context.
I want to pay tribute to the Government for a measured and reasoned response to the committee's report. Perhaps I am less critical than my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and I do not believe that I carry the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with me on that. However, the Home Office made no secret of the fact that it would like to have seen the incitement to racial hatred provisions incorporated into the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Bill 2001, but it accepts that following the passing of the Act it will have to reconsider its proposal in the future.
Several noble Lords commented on that point and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. This has not hindered what I regard as a wholly practical approach to the committee's findings. I was going to say "constructive" approach, but I am downgrading that. The message from the committee on blasphemy is clear: there are deficiencies in the present law, but not only in the bias in favour of the Church of England. In passing, may I pay tribute to the evidence from the Muslim Council of Britain, which has been referred to by several noble Lords, including the noble Viscount. Lord Colville. The council said, in effect, that while Islam does not enjoy the protection of the law, it was better that the protection should extend to one faith rather than none. If I may say so, not as a member of this committee, I read that as not only a generous comment but a statesmanlike one, too.
I was interested to hear the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, who assured your Lordships of the comfort which the Jewish and Muslim communities enjoy from the umbrella of the blasphemy laws. There are clearly deficiencies when legislation which is in place is so rarely used, but—speaking as a non-lawyer—is that necessarily a bad thing?
However, I note in this section that the committee and the Government do not agree on the necessity for the definition of religion, the Home Office taking the view that this should be left to the courts, the committee arguing that this is an issue that cannot be evaded and leaving the decision to the courts would place an unreasonable burden on them and involve long delays. The Minister's comment on that would be interesting. But I am reassured that there is agreement to differ on that point, and both the committee and the Home Office share the view that further debate on

473
the matter of blasphemy is called for. Certainly the committee's report has provided a valuable starting point.
On freedom of speech, there were particularly valuable submissions from the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police in contrasting modes, the former expressing reservations about the criminalisation of hatred, especially if no intention to stir up hatred is required, while the police would welcome an offence of incitement to religious hatred as an additional instrument to support good community relations.
The report in this section and elsewhere emphasises the impact that Article 9 of the ECHR on freedom of thought has on this whole subject. We have been treated by several noble Lords to the easily comprehensible example that the absence of an offence of incitement to religious hatred may be said to deprive the multi-ethnic groups, such as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and indeed those with no formal religious allegiance, of the protection afforded to the mono-religious faith groups, such as Jews and Sikhs. Further, it is suggested that these differing impacts could fall foul of Article 14 of the ECHR, dealing with discrimination and the enjoyment of rights and freedoms.
All this serves to remind us of the correlation between religious and racial hatred. The two are in some ways mutually self-feeding, and I was interested to hear the illustrations provided by the noble Lord, Lord Mafia, on this. However, they are two absolutely discrete subjects, and those seeking to address the problems of either or both of them ignore this at their peril. The crossover between the two must be continually monitored, and indeed it is clear that in this report the committee has been aware of this. I also draw attention to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that religion has been used as a cloak for political motives. This report does not apply to Northern Ireland, but surely we have an example of just that very close to home.
This House is indeed fortunate to have had the contribution of so distinguished a group of speakers, and in congratulating once again the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and his colleagues on this excellent contribution, we shall look forward to the Minister's reply with interest.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I add my voice to those of all noble Lords who complimented the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on stimulating this interesting debate, on his helpful and comprehensive exposition of the committee's work and particularly his explanation of how it reached its findings—I shall not say "recommendations" because I now understand precisely why there were not any. I am also grateful to the noble Viscount for giving us the benefit of his own views now that he can break free of the constraints of being chairman of the committee.
The report will remain for the foreseeable future the document of reference for anyone interested in exploring the history of existing religious offences and the many difficult issues that the legislator must consider. We must be careful before proposing any legislation on religious
474
offences, because any new legislation must be fit for the purpose and shaped in the context of a modern Britain. Therefore, I understand the hesitation of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, although I may not entirely agree with him.
We recognise and value the diversity of modern Britain; it is multi-ethnic and multi-faith. Therefore, we must also recognise that, although religion plays a very important part in many people's lives in modern Britain, a significant proportion of the population has no religious belief at all. That was exemplified by the comments of my noble friend Lady Massey.
The noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Judd, tended to indicate that the law does not have a significant part to play in changing culture. I cannot agree with them on that. The law can play a part in changing culture, and it is appropriate that it does so on occasion. I wanted particularly to endorse the remarks of all those who said that all people are created equal.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I think that she has misinterpreted the point. The point made was that the law could not be a substitute for the culture. You do not win the battle by having the law; you do so by winning the culture.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly understand my noble friend's point. We need both: law and culture working together in harmony, reinforcing and supporting each other, so that good practice and good behaviour are enhanced and not undermined. I am sure that my noble friend would agree with me on that.
There must be equality, for those who are religious, in the eyes of God and equality also in the eyes of the law. Therefore, we understand the Select Committee's conclusion that civil and criminal law should afford the same protection to people of all faiths and none. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the Government have not ducked their responsibility in that regard; nor do we share his assessment of what has happened in the past 20 years. I understand and hear his disappointment, but I do not share it, because the plethora of achievements in this area cannot be dismissed as small or insignificant.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich spoke very constructively about the basis of taking the issue forward, which is what today's debate is about. I listened with great interest to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich about the umbrella that the blasphemy laws provide. That was very much supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, who described it as a canopy of protection.
As was made plain by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, the blasphemy laws are used rarely. The last successful private prosecution was in 1977, and there have been no public prosecutions since 1922. Given that context and the fact that blasphemy affords

475
protection only to the Church of England, we were attracted to repeal of the blasphemy laws. However, full consideration and a wider debate were needed to inform the way forward. Today's debate has provided a good opportunity to listen to, and to explore those views. I should make it clear that what matters to the Government is that we should bring about an integrated society in which no one is left behind and in which we draw strength and enrichment from our diversity. That is part of our fundamental beliefs.
The Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860—which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Viscount have touched on—gives rise to a number of interesting, and some difficult, issues. We believe that those of religious faith deserve the best protection that the law will allow, including protection for their places of worship. There are only a limited number of prosecutions under the Act, and it has never been used for offences against non-Christian places of worship. We feel that the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act offers additional protection in only a small number of cases, as most offences against, or in places of, religious worship would already be covered by other criminal offences, such as criminal damage and public order offences. Therefore, we do not feel that reformulating the legislation would offer any more meaningful protection than exists under current laws.
Your Lordships know that we attempted to introduce a new offence of incitement to religious hatred in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The proposal was withdrawn, due to objections raised in this House and championed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and ably supported by my noble friend Lord Desai, among others. The withdrawal of those provisions was based very much on the opposition of those who argued, as they have done today, that it bore little relation to the Bill's main theme of countering terrorism, and that there should be separate legislation aimed at protecting religious beliefs and their expression, following a proper public debate and a weighing of options.
They were also concerned that such a measure would impact adversely on free speech. I hope that the report's examination of the incitement to religious hatred issue and today's debate will have gone some way to addressing many noble Lords' concerns that the proposal to introduce such a new offence was not receiving proper independent scrutiny in Parliament. Today's debate has provided an excellent opportunity for a fuller consideration of the issue in the context of a wider debate on religious offences, as has the time that has elapsed between that Bill and this debate. I must take this opportunity to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for his kindness and understanding in relation to the efforts that the Government have made. I will, of course, respectfully agree with his assessment.
In terms of balance between protecting religious groups and protecting freedom of expression, it is clearly essential to preserve this country's long and cherished tradition of freedom of speech. People must continue to be allowed to criticise beliefs and practices
476
with which they disagree and do so robustly. However, we believe that it is possible to distinguish in legislation between criticism of a religion, or members of a religious group, and a criminal act of inciting hatred. I want to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, that we believe that historians can be safe.
It would be necessary to ensure that the criminal threshold for any proposed offence covers the harm that is being done, without unduly interfering with the rights of free expression as enshrined in human rights legislation. We believe that this can be done. I emphasise that, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the Government do not believe that it is necessary to define religion. What is important is that we deal with the hatred, because that is what is inherently offensive. That is what my noble friend Lord Rooker said when we were debating the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Bill in 2001. I do not hesitate to endorse that.
The evidence given to the Select Committee has shown that this is a matter of real concern for many communities, and the balance of opinion was in favour of the creation of the new offence. We heard that powerfully, I respectfully suggest, in the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, and my noble friend Lady Uddin.
There is a level of pain being experienced in many communities that we should recognise. We also note the joint statement by the representatives of important organisations in most of the faith communities in this country, urging the Government to legislate against incitement to religious hatred as soon as possible and asking Members of both Houses to support such a move. Such a statement carries weight and must be taken seriously, not least as confirmation that faith communities perceive there to be a problem that must be addressed.
We are very aware of the concerns of many people, in particular, as I said, the Muslim community. As members of a religious group, they are not offered the same protection against incitement to hatred as exists for mono-ethnic faith groups such as Jews and Sikhs. We also know that Christians do not have that coverage either. The noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Bhatia, and my noble friend Lady Uddin spoke in particular about that gap. We went into the debate from a position of being in principle in favour of introducing a new offence of incitement to religious hatred. If recent statements and representations made to the Home Office are any indication, there would appear to be as much, if not more, support for such a measure in the wider community as existed when the report was published a year ago. We will study the arguments that we have heard in the debate, before formulating measures to address the issues that have been raised, although I cannot at this stage indicate when an opportunity to legislate on the matter might be found. Noble Lords will know the extent of the legislation that is to come to the House in this Session.

477
We have no plans for a general reform of the law on hate crime. We recognise that there are groups other than racial or religious groups who may be seen to be vulnerable to attack or vilification. We sought to deal with the specific areas of race and religion because those areas presented a particular problem that needed to be addressed and posed a threat to social cohesion. However. protection against hate crime has been extended to other groups. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provided increased sentences for crimes aggravated by hatred of a person on the grounds of sexual orientation or disability. The wealth of evidence given to the committee shows the importance of religiously motivated crime for so many of our people and the direct impact that it has on their communities. To my noble friend Lord Desai, I say that it has been impossible for many people to distinguish between their religion, their racial origin or their faith. However, I acknowledge that, because of the racial element, Asian Muslims will have protection under the Race Relations Act that others may not have.
For that reason, we introduced the new racially and religiously aggravated offences to send a strong message that racist and religious crime would not be tolerated. The Crown Prosecution Service's policy on racist and religious crime was launched in July last year, outlining its commitment to prosecute racist and religious crime fairly, firmly and robustly. By putting policy into practice, the Crown Prosecution Service aims to build more effective cases and bring more offenders to justice. The latest CPS statistics show that there were only 18 fully finished religiously aggravated cases between 14 December 2001 and 31 March 2003. Although the numbers are small, there has been no suggestion that the prosecution authorities have had any problem with the new offences. In addition, the CPS keeps a running total of all religiously aggravated crime, including finished cases, cases still going through the system and cases in which the charge is amended to a different offence. As at 2 April 2004, there were 74 religiously aggravated cases being monitored by the Crown Prosecution Service, so there is an increasing number of cases in the system.
It is still early days for our awareness of religiously aggravated crime, and there is more work to be done building awareness and confidence that it will be tackled. The Home Office has created a faith communities unit, and part of its remit is to examine faith-related crime issues and their impact on communities, including the under-reporting of religiously motivated crime.
Much has been said about sentencing, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We note the concern that the introduction of statutory racially-aggravated and religiously-aggravated offences and the powers to increase sentences for racial and religious aggravation could create sentencing inconsistencies and make sentencing more complicated for the courts.
However, we are not aware that the introduction of those offences has, in practice, caused difficulties of that kind. The added complexity can be managed through sentencing guidelines. Any downside in terms of complexity is outweighed by the beneficial impact that specific aggravating factors can have in producing
478
sentences which deal effectively with hate crimes that involve significant social problems, and as a signal to victims and offenders that such crimes are unacceptable. To assist judges and magistrates, sentencing guidelines have been published by the Magistrates' Association. Extensive training is also now given to magistrates and judges on aggravating and mitigating factors that impact on sentencing.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 created the Sentencing Guidelines Council. I know that the noble Viscount says "Well, isn't that it and don't we get rid of all the laws and complications". Bearing in mind the time, perhaps I may use a short form and say, "No". The Sentencing Guidelines Council will go a long way towards addressing the report's concerns about the new aggravated offences creating sentencing inconsistencies and making sentences complicated for the courts.
We have noted that one of the key conclusions of the Select Committee's report is that civil and criminal law should afford the same protection to people of all faiths and of none. In December 2003, the new Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations prohibit direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief in employment. The Government are working to disseminate good practice on those new regulations. They have worked with ACAS to produce good practice guidance and support an advice helpline for employers and employees.
Changes in society in recent years have not resulted in the ebbing of religious values and the consequent emergence of the United Kingdom as a secular state. Religious values continue to play a significant part in shaping social values. We recognise the value of the role that religion plays in people's lives in Britain today.
It is for that reason that we are being very careful. We have listened very carefully to all that has been said. We will take the report into account. I can certainly assure the House that the Government will be very careful in the way in which they take the matter forward, but it is a matter of which we are firmly seized.
5.37 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, briefly at this time on a Thursday, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. My colleagues on the Select Committee would have been extremely pleased to hear the gratifying comments that were made about the report. It was intended to be a contribution to the debate, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, that the proceedings today mark a further step forward.
It is only part of the scene. The report concerned religious offences and deals therefore with criminal law. I take the point made by the right reverend Prelate that we need a full panoply by having the civil law as well. Some has recently been introduced, again coming from Europe, and that forms the other, very valuable, half of this exercise. Apart from the protection of places of worship and artefacts, which perhaps

479
deserves a little more attention than it was given today because there are occasions when the other criminal offences do not work, everyone has rightly been talking about people. Of course that is what this is all about. When considering the gaps in the protection for people, we need to remember how careful we must be in this area. The noble Baroness just emphasised that point. When the Public Order Act 1986 was passed, I do not think that there was any idea that Part 3 relating to race would be held to relate to Sikhs and Jews, but not to any other religious entity. This was a surprise which came about as a result of case law. It was certainly not drafted into the Act and came about partly as the result of one particular case relating to a Sikh in a school and then, by development, from case law in New Zealand relating to Jews. Those are developments that one does not expect. My noble friend Lord Bhatia and others have drawn attention to the unfairness of this, and indeed it is unfair. But that is what happens when legislation is introduced which has not been thought through. I still think that there is a very small gap between the existing criminal offences which deal with issues like religious hatred and freedom of speech. What that gap is has not really been explored.
480
An opportunity arose to deal with it in 2001, however careful were the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Desai, in discussing it, but this was not the issue at the root of what they were talking about. I believe that it now is and I was glad to hear the noble Baroness say that the Home Office will be very careful. However, it is being constructive and it is clear that this is a continuing dialogue between all concerned. I hope that perhaps one day we shall revert to this matter, if not quite yet. If the Home Office does bring forward legislation to deal with offences surrounding the incitement to religious hatred, then I shall want to look very carefully at the content and drafting because I do not think that it is at all easy to do.
Meanwhile, I hope that the House will take note of the report, which is all it has to do in accordance with my Motion. I trust that that will be agreed by all noble Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
Bill returned from the Commons with the amendment to which the Lords have disagreed not insisted on.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before six o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Traffic Management Bill
  (First Day)
  Thursday, 22 April 2004.

  Traffic Management Bill

    The Committee met at a quarter past three of the clock.
    [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Noble Lords will speak standing and the House has agreed that there will be no Divisions in a Grand Committee. Therefore, unless an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
    Viscount Astor: Before the first amendment is called I have two points to make to the Minister. First, I thank him for arranging meetings with his officials which were extremely useful in explaining some of the complicated matters in the Bill.
    Secondly, I hope the Minister will not mind if I take this opportunity to berate him in the most tactful way that I can. In the debate on civil enforcement of traffic contraventions in another place on 16 March, the Minister, Mr Jamieson, said,
    "I have concluded that there is merit in putting civil enforcement guidance on a statutory basis. It would give the guidance greater force and make authorities more mindful of its content when carrying out enforcement activities. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will withdraw the new clause on the understanding that we will introduce a suitable amendment in another place, putting guidance to local authorities on civil enforcement of traffic contraventions on a statutory basis".—[Official Report, Commons; 16/3/04; col. 193.]
    I notice that the Minister has not tabled such an amendment and I wonder whether he can give an assurance that he will table one while we are dealing with the Bill in Committee.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the way in which he introduced this additional point. I have good and bad news for him. The good news is that a government amendment will certainly be tabled to fulfil the commitments that we made in the Commons. The bad news is that there are one or two other government amendments that we are still to table as a result of developments in regard to the Bill which relate to later parts of the Bill. They will be tabled in good time fir proper consideration by the Committee.
    Title postponed.
    GC 2
    Clause 1 [Traffic' officers: introduction]:
    Viscount Simon Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 1:
    Page 1, line 5, after "traffic" insert "support"
    The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 1 standing in my name I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. I am delighted that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, put their names to these amendments, thus giving cross-party support. We all know what a police officer is and recently we have seen police officers given some assistance by people called police community support officers who are not police officers. Most people know what a traffic officer is: he is a police officer who has specialised in traffic and road policing and he also deals with non-traffic offences that he encounters.
    We have traffic officers who are police officers and others so named in the Bill who are not. I venture to suggest that that will lead to some confusion and it could be a recipe for disaster. After all, when is a policeman not a policeman? The answer is when he is a traffic officer.
    I am led to believe that when ACPO were discussing certain aspects of the Bill, the inclusion of the words "traffic officer" was passed through on the nod. It was not until after the deliberations had concluded that it was realised what had been done. So like civilians called "police community support officers", I propose that non-police traffic officers should be called "traffic support officers". I beg to move.
    Viscount Astor: I would like to support the amendment which would be useful in terms of avoiding confusion. I am sure that the Minister will provide a helpful answer. If he does not, we have the ability to degroup the 50-odd amendments with which it is grouped.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: It has not taken long for the nuclear threat to emerge. Degrouping of that magnitude fills the Committee with proper terror and me with a very substantial degree of it. I hope, therefore, that my reply to the amendment and to the others with which it is grouped will be sufficiently helpful to enable the noble Viscount to feel able to withdraw it.
    I remind the Committee why we are introducing the traffic officer service. Congestion on our strategic road network already costs the country around £3 billion each year, and traffic is forecast to grow by 25 per cent over the next decade. A quarter of all the congestion is attributable to incidents which also lead to more than 4,000 people being killed or seriously injured annually.
    Pressures on the network continue to increase so the imperative for better traffic management is clear. Traffic officers will play a pivotal part in helping the Highways Agency to expand its role as a network operator and take a much more pro-active role in the management of traffic. At the same time it will allow the police to refocus some of their resources so as to concentrate on core activities.
    The traffic officer initiative is about improving the motorist's journey on the network, and acting as the "motorist's friend". Here my noble friend may detect

    GC 3
    an inkling of the fact that I am responding sympathetically to the sentiments behind his proposal. As the motorist's friend, the officer will tackle congestion, remove obstructions and dangers, address safety and help the public to have a safe and reliable journey to their destination.
    Traffic officers will focus particularly on managing traffic in the event of collisions and other incidents. They will work alongside the police, other emergency services, maintenance and repair contractors, vehicle removal contractors, and others to clear incidents quickly and to redirect traffic. But they will also be expected to take the lead in dealing with minor incidents, clearing obstructions and implementing traffic management measures to redirect traffic around obstructions. They will also help to improve information for road users on the nature, scale and duration of incidents.
    We believe that the name "traffic officer" conveys the right message about the traffic officer's role to the public, striking the right balance between acting as the "motorist's friend"—which is clearly a crucial part of the role—and signifying the authority to take control and issue directions when needed.
    The name "traffic officer" is acceptable to all the major stakeholders including Ministers, the Department for Transport, the Highways Agency and the police. It is now recognised in many circles, including both Houses, and is being used in ongoing consultations with external stakeholders. I hear what my noble friend says about reservations in some quarters but we have not received adverse comments on the name during our consultation. "Traffic officer" has the great virtue of brevity and clarity. That is of some importance. Vehicle livery and road signage and notices should be short so that drivers can read them quickly, even when travelling at high speed. On certain occasions the signs will, of course, be under the direction of traffic officers.
    The proposed name is, as my noble friend indicated, similar to "community support officer", a service established under the Police Reform Act 2002. But I think my noble friend will recognise that community support officers operate predominantly on foot in town centres and pedestrian environments. Traffic officers will operate in a very different environment indeed. It is not desirable to have a longer rather than a shorter name when messages must be communicated to people, sometimes at high speed and in all weather conditions, day and night. For those very reasons, the traffic signs regulations allow the police to use signs on moving vehicles in a sharp and abbreviated form: for example, "Police—Slow"; "Police—Accident"; "Police—Use hard shoulder"; and "Police—Rejoin main carriageway". Those messages, which are communicating accurate information, are as brief as possible because the police are signalling to moving traffic which is often going at high speed.
    We intend to authorise that kind of signage and communication for the traffic officer service. We believe that a far longer name, which noble Lords seek in the amendment, would be disadvantageous while in no way creating a significant advantage.
    GC 4
    I understand the point behind my noble friend's amendment, and I recognise the intention to identify the traffic officer as being of support and help to the travelling public. Nevertheless, there are circumstances in which a traffic officer needs authority, and that authority needs to be recognised immediately and appropriately. That is why he should be called by the terms that we have defined.
    Viscount Astor: The Minister has been kind in giving us an explanation of the duties of traffic officers, which has helped to set out what their role will be. When the Bill was debated in another place, the Government accepted an amendment which would bring about a standard uniform for traffic officers. However, having listened to the Minister, it is clear that those officers will be advising, or even telling, the motorist what to do when they are in their vehicles. Have the Government given any thought to what will be written on those vehicles? Clearly they are not police vehicles, but will they have blue lights? Will they carry a sign stating "Traffic Officer"? What will be written on them? When the motorist receives the message at high speed, will it be clear who is giving him that message? Will there be a blue or a yellow light? Will there be something to ensure that they have the necessary authority to carry out the role that noble Lords are suggesting?
    Lord Davies of Oldham: It is intended that traffic officers will be designated by having red lights on their vehicles. They are different from the police. They are not police, but of course they have authority to redirect traffic which itself may be moving at considerable speed. Therefore, it is important that that authority is instantly recognised.
    Lord Rotherwick: I wanted to clarify one point. The Minister pointed out, importantly, that signs on motorways state "Police—Left" or "Police—This or that". If the traffic officer in question is putting out the sign, what will it say? Will it say, "Traffic—Stop" or "Traffic—Diversion", with the first word insinuating that the sign is being placed by a traffic officer rather than a policeman, or will the traffic officer use the word "Police" when using signage to tell motorists what to do?
    Lord Davies of Oldham: He will not use the word "Police"; he will use the words "Traffic Officer". That is what he is. Members of the Committee are not looking totally convinced by the quality of my argument at this stage. That may derive from the fact that we are all used to the colloquialism whereby police officers are often referred to as traffic officers when they are in control of police cars on motorways.
    We do not see anything wrong with the public associating the traffic officer and his authority with the role of the police guiding traffic. In fact, in that respect the traffic officer is taking over aspects of police work, and that is why we want to use a phrase which is as close as possible to the public's understanding. These officers have areas of authority, but it is equally clear that they must be recognised as different from police, because they do not have direct police powers.
    3.30 p.m.
    Viscount Goschen: Will the Minister say what efforts the Government will make to educate the motorist about the powers of these new officers? A number of members of the Committee warned on Second Reading against a dilution of the instant recognisability and authority of the police. such as the blue light, and a number of other types of officer, such as community support officers, being seen in uniform. I am not clear about the powers of a community support officer who wants to search an individual. Is the individual obliged to undergo such a search?
    We know that these officers will be using a red light. Will motorists have to yield to a vehicle with a red light? We all know, as motorists, that we have to yield to vehicles with a blue light, be they ambulances, fire engines or police cars. If there is a vehicle with a blue light repeatedly flashing, the motorist must pull over. Will that be the case with red lights? How will the motorist know what to do?
    Baroness Scott of Needham Market: While the Minister is answering that, I have a question of my own. I declare an interest as chair of the Local Government Association Transport Executive. My point concerns recognisability and public perception. While it is very clear in the public mind that a motorway is a motorway, and that is one kind of road on which such officers will operate, it is much more difficult in the case of trunk roads. Some of them are under local authority control because of recent detrunking arrangements, and some will remain under the control of the Highways Agency. So it will be perfectly normal to have two very similar roads in one area: one, under Highways Agency control, will have the officers, and the other will not. That may add to confusion in the mind of the public.
    Viscount Simon: May I ask a further question on rear-facing lights which are red? At the moment, as these officers are not police officers, they will not have to be obeyed. My understanding is that some time in the future it is proposed that these so-called traffic officers will have rear-facing blue lights. Legislation will have to be introduced because they are still not police officers.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I think I can give a categoric response to the contribution from my noble friend. There is no intention that they will have blue lights because, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, a blue light, particularly one flashing in one's rear mirror, indicates one proper authority to which we are all used to responding—but not too often, I hope.
    Traffic officers will not be involved in pursuit, nor in monitoring traffic which is moving, so there is no question of their light flashing, to motorists' concern, in their rear-view mirror. The traffic officer is there to give warning of problems ahead. They do not have powers of arrest, so they will not go in pursuit of anyone who may contravene traffic regulations in relationship to their work. That is done by police officers and only by police officers.
    GC 6
    Traffic officers will exert proper authority around an incident. They will have to be obeyed; they will have the statutory power to stop and direct traffic but not, as I think noble Lords were indicating, to engage in high speed pursuit of someone whom they regard as having broken the law. They will have the right to place mandatory traffic signs which will need to be obeyed, otherwise motorists will be breaking the law. But there is no intention to create for them the exact similitude of a police officer.
    Lord Cobbold: Surely they will need to force their way through a traffic jam to get to the place where the incident is happening so that there will be a red light in the mirror and people will have to move out of the way.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: That is true, and I feared that aspects of this debate would relate to the whole question of our driving habits and how we respond to lights in our mirrors and so on. The noble Lord is correct—people would be expected to concede to a vehicle of authority, one which would be going about its lawful business of dealing with congestion. The matter on which I was seeking to disabuse the Committee was the notion that a red light would have the same effect as a blue light, which, as I understood the position, was an indication that a police officer might be in pursuit of individual motorists—pulling them over with regard to particular offences. That will not be the role of a traffic officer.
    Viscount Simon: The Minister referred to signs given at high speeds. Does that mean that a traffic officer is allowed to exceed the speed limit?
    Lord Davies of Oldham: No, when I referred to signs at high speed I meant signs that would be placed in any obstructed carriageway, or even above on a motorway sign, which would indicate that there was a problem ahead and that the problem had been identified by a traffic officer, not a policeman. But traffic officers would have the right to trigger or to set those signs that would need to be recognised at high speed.
    I shall go a little further, because I have not gone far enough in reassuring the Committee about the point of the flashing red lights. There will be flashing red lights at the point of the incident. When they travel to the location of the incident the traffic officers will not be in emergency pursuit, as police officers sometimes are. We all know, for example with regard to ambulances, how quickly we move to one side to facilitate the progress of emergency vehicles. Traffic officers will not be in that category—that is why they will not be carrying those lights. The reason for a red light will be that the vehicle will largely be parked at, or he very close to the incident and the light will be there to indicate to everyone that a person in authority is there dealing with the incident and certain instructions will need to be obeyed.
    Lord Rotherwick: I apologise for nit-picking. However, following the noble Lord's comments on red lights coming up in one's rear mirror, could the Minister tell us a little more? If a traffic officer is racing towards an incident of great importance, say, on a

    GC 7
    motorway, and needs to minimise disruption, improve the movement of traffic and perhaps make the road safer, will the motorist see that traffic officer in the rear mirror approaching with flashing red lights and a siren? After all, ambulances and police have sirens. If that is the case, will the traffic officer's siren be of a different nature to those of ambulances and the police, so that one can differentiate between all three?
    Lord Davies of Oldham: The traffic officer will not be in charge of an emergency service. When it comes to motorways, he or she almost certainly will proceed down the hard shoulder to pass obstructions—as do recovery vehicles that also sometimes have flashing lights, but which are never associated with the police. That will also be the case with a traffic officer. He will not be expected to be hurtling down our roads at high speeds with red flashing lights. On the contrary, they will proceed to the incident. It is there that the red light will come into play, when the vehicle is in position to give warning to traffic. But they will not be authorised in the same way that police inevitably are, due to their emergency role, to engage in high speed driving above speed limits on occasions with a blue light flashing. Traffic officers will not be able, or expected, to engage in such activity because that is not their role. There will be no siren, either.
    Viscount Simon: Mouchel, which has recently changed its name, is the equivalent of the Highways Agency in carrying out these operations when there are collisions on motorways and, perhaps eventually, dual carriageways. When its vehicles have to travel on the hard shoulder they have to obtain permission from the police in order to do so. Will that continue?
    Lord Davies of Oldham: We are providing for exemptions for traffic officers to use hard shoulders. We recognise that arriving early at a point of congestion is to the benefit of all. I want to reassure noble Lords that they will not exercise the same role as police officers.
    Viscount Goschen: I want to push the Minister on one point. He made two statements. First, traffic officers would have the power to order motorists to stop their vehicles; and, secondly, they would not do that from a moving vehicle. Sometimes the police order vehicles to stop. On some occasions they slow down a whole column of motorway traffic approaching an accident. Will traffic officers have the power to stop vehicles only when they themselves are stationary?
    Lord Davies of Oldham: The answer to the question is, "Yes". The concept is that the traffic officer arrives at the point of congestion caused by the incident and then takes action. The vehicle with its red light is part of the warning. Traffic officers have powers to direct traffic, and if necessary to stop motorists for that period of time when it may be necessary to clear the road as a result of an accident. That is when their powers are deployed.
    Lord Marsh: As the debate continues, I have an overwhelming desire to see whether I can outperform
    GC 8
    in the number of hypothetical situations that one could stand on the head of a traffic warden or support officer. The amendment is purely to include the word "support". Presumably, "support" in each of these cases—I make a wild assumption—relates to the rest of that part of the Bill under which we shall discuss the traffic support officer against the background of the issue that it deals with, which will be nowhere near as much fun. Can we get on?
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I was hoping we could get on in such a form that I did not need to rise.
    Viscount Simon: It has been an interesting discussion. I have to say that I am not totally convinced. The Minister said at one stage that these officers would work alongside the police. Police community support officers work alongside the police. Working alongside the police means supporting the police. I am still not convinced. I will read carefully what has been said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
    Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 3:
    Page 1, line 11, at end insert "; or
    (c) liaison with local traffic authorities to assist the management of traffic moving over relevant and local roads"
    The noble Viscount said: Part 1 of the Bill sets out provisions for the Secretary of State and the Assembly for Wales to establish traffic officers responsible for managing strategic road networks in England and Wales. The amendment places a duty on traffic officers to liaise closely with local transport authorities.
    The Local Government Association has expressed a concern that local traffic authorities have not been given similar powers to those given to the Highways Agency and the Assembly for Wales, and that that may have the unintended result of raising expectations among local road users that they will receive a similar service from local traffic authorities.
    The Bill does not anticipate equivalent staff employed by local authorities. So the amendment would ensure that there would be a dialogue with and a relationship between traffic officers and local authorities. That will ensure that traffic officers will be made aware of individual traffic management pressures within those authorities, including issues arising from duties set out elsewhere in the Bill.
    It has been suggested that the Highways Agency staff will be more operational in nature, in that they will be similar to constables in the work they carry out, rather than undertaking any administrative duties. We have just had a debate about some of their responsibilities. It is clear that in spite of the Minister not accepting the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, they are, in effect, in this support role. I believe that it would be a good idea to ensure that officers bear in mind the need to take local traffic issues into account when carrying out their duties. I beg to move.
    3.45 p.m.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I thought that the thrust of the previous debate dealt with how extensive the role of traffic officers should be. On the whole, the burden of certain remarks was that they needed to be restrained. That is the case. The role of the traffic officer is a limited one. The crucial aspect in which it is limited is the roads on which they will play their part, such as our motorways and our major trunk roads.
    We recognise that in certain circumstances, to relieve congestion and problems on a trunk road, it may be necessary to exert a certain amount of authority with regard to joining local roads. The intention is that the traffic officer's duty will apply to trunk roads and to motorways.
    The amendment takes the responsibility much wider than that, under the benevolent guise of indicating that most traffic management will have aspects of successful co-operation with local authorities. During the course of deliberations on the Bill we shall have plenty of time to debate co-ordination of activity with local authorities. It would not be right for us to accept an amendment that extends a traffic officer's duties to local roads. Not one of us can doubt that local authorities have an important role to play as regards roads. I need to resist the amendment because the concept behind the Bill is that traffic officers will operate on the trunk road network and on motorways.
    There is already liaison between the national authority and local traffic authorities. That takes place through existing Highways Agency and local authority channels and more recently through national and regional control centres. Thus direct input from traffic officers is likely to be nominal, as their main activity will be to patrol the trunk road network. Others will be concerned with the level of co-ordination that we all recognise is beneficial; and so beneficial to the travelling public that a great deal of co-ordination already takes place. On that basis, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
    Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am not entirely confident that the Minister has fully understood the LGA position. It is certainly not asking for the powers of traffic officers' support or otherwise to be extended. It is simply a matter of practicality. It is not difficult to imagine a situation in which a traffic officer, attending an accident on a trunk road, decides to divert the traffic on a day when the local authority has also decided that major roadworks will take place on the same road. The affected road may be some miles away and the traffic officer on the spot, with a blocked road and an accident, will not be aware of problems elsewhere in the network, unless there is some liaison.
    While I fully accept that it would be better if such a matter were not on the face of the Bill, nevertheless I believe that the Committee and external agencies would like some assurance that at least in guidance the
    GC 10
    issue of liaison will be addressed very strongly. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for the motorist to know who is to blame for a situation that has arisen.
    Viscount Astor: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may make a couple of points following the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
    I accept that my amendment might have been somewhat misleading to the Minister because, at the end, it says "and local roads". The amendment was not intended to extend the power of traffic officers to local roads; it was intended to ensure that when the traffic officer was liasing with local authorities, the local authorities would have to take into account what was happening on local roads. The issue of trunk roads cannot be taken in isolation. The noble Baroness cited a valid example which we have all seen whereby there is an accident on a trunk road, the road is closed and traffic is diverted on to a minor road. That has happened on motorways and dual carriageways.
    My amendment was not about extending any remit but about ensuring that there will be adequate liaison between local authorities and the traffic officers. We would like that assurance from the Minister. I think he made a helpful point about guidance, saying that the point could be dealt with in some form of guidance. I would be grateful if he could clarify that, because I was not exactly sure what he was saying. His answer was helpful but I should be very grateful if he could expand on it slightly.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I am reluctant to expand too much on my response at this stage because, as the Committee will recognise, a substantial section of the Bill deals with the question of successful liaison and relations with local authorities. We are going to debate that issue at very great length. All I want to indicate now is that co-ordination is not only desirable but essential. It is already taking place between agencies. However, traffic officers will not be responsible for that level of co-ordination.
    Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister. He has not entirely answered my question but I shall read carefully what he said. I do not know whether I misheard him when he talked about guidance in his original comments. I do not know exactly what he meant by those. I would be grateful if he could reply briefly.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: We are developing national and local protocols with local government on these issues. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, indicated, those already apply to information exchange on issues of urgency. As I said, we will be able later in the Bill's passage to explore how we can give better effect to that co-ordination. I am merely saying that it would not be appropriate to extend that role to traffic officers.
    Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which I shall study with care. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 not moved.]
    [VISCOUNT ASTOR]
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2 [Designation of traffic officers]:
    [Amendments Nos. 7 to 11 not moved.]
    Clause 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3 [Jurisdiction of traffic officers]:
    [Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
    On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Bradshaw: I join the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in thanking the Minister for facilitating our meeting with officials before this debate. That was very useful.
    My intention in opposing Clause 3 is to give us the opportunity to seek a very strong assurance from the Government that the measure in no way implies a reduction in the 550 existing traffic police who are hard pressed to carry out existing policing duties. I am sure that the Minister will give us that assurance but I should like him to include in it his colleagues in the Treasury. Such a measure as we are discussing may be viewed by others as an opportunity to introduce an economy. Traffic police have been significantly reduced in number. We cannot afford such a reduction. I assume that it will still fall to the traffic police to investigate accidents and other forms of lawbreaking but that they will not be investigating officers. Will the Minister clarify that diversions will involve the secondary road network? I am sure that that will be necessary in most cases.
    My next point concerns my experience, which I should have declared at the outset as an interest, as a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority. I have ridden in a police car on a motorway travelling at 140 miles an hour not in pursuit of a miscreant but because information has been received that a vehicle has hit the central or outside reservation and has rebounded on to the carriageway. It is important to reach the scene very quickly in order to stop other vehicles colliding with the vehicle that has rebounded on to the carriageway. Most motorway accidents result not from the primary collision but from other vehicles running into the first vehicle involved in the accident. Traffic officers need to be able to travel quickly to prevent subsequent collisions as they need to attract motorists' attention to the first collision. I would appreciate the Minister's response to those points.
    Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may raise a slightly different point relating to Clause 3. The use of hard shoulders was debated in another place. The Minister in the other place said that the Government intended to bring forward secondary legislation by the early summer of 2005 to allow traffic officers to use the hard shoulder. If we make progress on it, the Bill that we are discussing will come into effect rather earlier than the summer of 2005. Will the Government bring forward the relevant secondary legislation at an earlier date—I realise that the Minister said that consultation would be required—to enable traffic officers to operate effectively?
    GC 12
    As we discussed in our rather wide-ranging debate on the first amendment, not being able to use the hard shoulder would certainly be an impediment to the operational effectiveness of traffic officers. It is important that the Government consider that matter. What progress is being made on the issue? If we are to have traffic officers, we need to ensure that they have the correct powers, that their duties are clear and that everyone understands them from the beginning. I am sure the Minister will agree that what we do not want is to start off in a muddle. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me what progress the department has made on that matter.
    4 p.m.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for contributing to this debate. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that traffic officers will not supplant but, rather, will supplement the police. Traffic officers will take responsibility for some important duties, but duties that have occupied police officers at the cost of higher priorities. I am sure that all police forces which have tackled trunk road and motorway incidents will have had the experience of deploying their limited resources at one accident when another high priority accident occurs. As the noble Lord said, the relevant officers need to reach the scene of an accident quickly. I want to reassure him regarding the role of the police. They are the only ones who can effect an arrest, and they are the only ones who can investigate an accident in terms of the necessary evidence for bringing a prosecution.
    It is not expected that the police will not play an important role in any serious incident. The intention is to concentrate their role on important matters with which they alone can deal and to allow traffic officers to deal with the other, incidental consequences of such an incident—that is, relieving congestion and getting the traffic moving again. It is important that traffic officers should fulfil that role.
    I turn to the extension of the role of traffic officers beyond trunk roads and motorways. We can envisage some circumstances in which it will be necessary for them to play their part, although that will not necessarily be on trunk roads. For example, where a tunnel was built on a significant road, traffic officers would be required because if anything went wrong in a short section of the tunnel, there would be the potential for congestion. The traffic officers would be deployed there, whereas their presence would not be merited on the rest of the road system—the road itself—because it was not a major trunk road in other respects.
    Interestingly, noble Lords introduced to this part of the debate the question of the use of the hard shoulder. In the first instance, until the regulations are properly in place, the police will exempt a vehicle on the hard shoulder when it is clearly occupied by a traffic officer bent on his lawful business of moving towards the point where an incident has occurred. If the hard shoulder was being used by a traffic officer to take his

    GC 13
    wife and family to Blackpool, I have no doubt that there would inevitably be a different response from the police.
    We intend to amend the motorway regulations in the summer of 2005. At that point, we shall make the emendation to allow traffic officers to use the hard shoulder without needing police protection but, in the intervening period, that is how they will go about their reasonable business. We need to consult on this point in order to get it right. We shall be changing motorway regulations and we need to ensure that we effect those changes accurately in all aspects. That is why it will be a year before we do so.
    Viscount Astor: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. Can he give me an assurance that if a traffic officer on a trunk road happens to be within an area covered by local authority traffic wardens, he will not be given parking tickets by over-zealous traffic wardens for parking in the wrong place and that he will not be clamped?
    Lord Davies of Oldham: As I said, we anticipate that traffic wardens will operate on roads on which the local authority does not have that degree of power. Even if it had, it would not be painting yellow lines on them, thus giving effect to parking restrictions. However, I hear what the noble Viscount said and I am sure that a warning about the zeal with which they pursue their duties in this respect will go out to all officers.
    Clause 3 agreed to.
    Clause 4 [Powers to direct traffic officers]:
    [Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
    Clause 4 agreed to.
    Clause 5 [The special powers of a traffic officer]:
    [Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
    Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 18:
    Page 3, line 24, at end insert—
    "(e) ensuring the integrity of, and safety of persons involved in, any investigation into the causes of an accident or incident on such a road"
    The noble Lord said: Clause 5 deals with the special powers of traffic officers. It confers duties on them in respect of, among other things, the management of incidents in the strategic road network, as we have heard.
    The four paragraphs in subsection (3) only really emphasise the need to maintain or restore traffic flow. They do not really reflect the need to assist in the gathering of evidence, if that is necessary or to maintain the integrity of the crash site—which is clearly important under certain circumstances—and, most important of all, the safety of those who are conducting it. It is terribly important to protect the people involved in dealing with accidents. I should have thought it was a role that the traffic officer could usefully perform. I suspect that the Health and Safety Executive will pursue this with its usual diligence— especially if it loses any of the responsibility for railway safety, which is completely irrelevant.
    My noble friend may say that this is all covered already. However, it is important that this particular duty to protect the integrity of and safety of persons involved in investigations is in the Bill, along with the other four paragraphs. I beg to move.
    Lord Borrie: I support my noble friend Lord Berkeley. When one has a legislative provision and powers are set out with several purposes—here there are four lettered purposes—those purposes are more likely to be interpreted as exclusive. My noble friend Lord Berkeley is very rightly concerned with the safety of those who are at a particular spot investigating an accident. Paragraph (c) refers to,
    "avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using such a road".
    I suspect that the word "using" relates to people travelling up and down the road for their normal purposes rather than the traffic officer who has arrived to investigate an incident. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Berkeley is right in believing that it would be helpful to have an additional provision in Clause 5(3) to deal specifically with the risk of danger to those who are investigating an incident.
    Viscount Simon: The safety of an individual investigating a crash or coning off the scene of a crash is very important. I took the police course in this particular respect about 18 months ago, and it is now being covered by and introduced into other constabularies. This is very important and I thoroughly support my noble friend's amendment.
    Viscount Astor: I have a simple question for the Minister. I hope that he may be able to answer it, but if he does not perhaps he will write to me. As there will be a number of traffic officers patrolling motorways, as it were, it is quite likely that they could arrive at the scene of an accident before the police. Will they have any first aid training? Will they be able to help any persons involved in the accident? After all, the police have first aid training; they carry some medical supplies and they help. I am sure that the Minister and the Committee would not want a traffic officer to be prevented from being able to offer assistance to someone who had been involved in an accident. If the Minister cannot give me an answer now, I would be grateful if he would look into it for me.
    Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As we have heard, Amendment No. 18 seeks to assist accident investigations and those carrying out such investigations by enabling traffic officers to use their powers to stop and direct traffic to protect the scene of the incident. What has emerged from our brief discussion is the importance of traffic officers protecting the police who are carrying out the investigations. Traffic officers will have a critical and valuable role in protecting the scene of an incident during on-road investigations and the officers who are undertaking those investigations.
    In circumstances where death, serious injury and/or criminality is involved, the police will take the lead and carry out an investigation with traffic officers providing support. Police will undertake their work at the scene of the incident, while traffic officers will undertake traffic

    GC 15
    management measures to protect and preserve the accident scene, including the investigating officers, until investigations are complete.
    With additional resources for attending and dealing with incidents the police should be able to focus their efforts on the investigation, while traffic officers seek to minimise the disruption to traffic—including the possibility of secondary incidents. In that way accident investigations should be more effective than they are now; safer for all other people involved and less disruptive.
    Clause 5(3)(c) and (d) would allow traffic officers to use their special powers to avoid danger to persons on the road, or indeed traffic using the road, and to avoid damage to anything on the road; and those purposes would enable traffic officers to act in that way. The Government's view is that those provisions do provide the protection for investigating officers that noble Lords have been debating. Indeed the purposes in Clause 5(3)(a) and (b) would also be relevant, because traffic officers would be concerned to manage traffic driving to and past the investigation site with a view to minimising the impact that the investigation would have on traffic flow.
    Regarding the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, they will have training in emergency first aid and will be able to help in that area. I hope that, with those assurances, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
    Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. In doing so he has given us a strong justification of the needs of the traffic officers. It was very useful to hear how the Minister sees their role in relation to the police.
    I would agree with him that one could possibly interpret paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) as covering my amendment, but I return to the helpful comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who said that avoiding danger to "persons or other traffic", as I understood from his contribution, is to do with using the road as drivers and passengers. I shall read the comments of my noble friend in response and then consider whether my concerns have been covered, or whether we should have another go at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.15 p.m.
    Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 19:
    Page 3, line 25, leave out "incidental" and insert "connected"
    The noble Viscount said: This amendment also relates to Clause 5 and I am concerned about the word "incidental". I did consider whether the whole of line 25 should be removed from the Bill, because it seemed to me that it was otiose to the matter and it widened the clause unnecessarily. I looked up "incidental" in the dictionary, which gave the definition,
    "minor, supplementary and not essential".
    We seem to be giving traffic officers powers to be involved in something that is not essential near a road. That is a bit loose; we should consider making it a little tighter and clearer. I have used the word "connected" in the amendment, although I am not sure whether it is the right word. One could use the term "associated with", for example.
    It seems to me that the provision in line 25 widens everything. Parliamentary draftsmen like to widen things as much as they can because they never like to be told that the powers might not be there in the future. Drafting is always all-encompassing, which one can appreciate. But it is the job of your Lordships' House, as a revising Chamber, to ensure that we do not give these wider powers to anybody. We should consider what those powers should be with care so that traffic officers can operate with the powers they need to do the job that Parliament gives them successfully. That is my concern.
    This is a probing amendment on the drafting. I should also like the Minister to consider why and in which circumstances it could be necessary. I beg to move.
    4.16 p.m.
    Lord Berkeley: I cannot see the point of this amendment. The role of the traffic officer, as set out in the Bill, is extremely good. "Incidental" will widen the provision very nicely regarding incidents or even problems on roads which are not major trunk roads which are covered by this. I think the wording as it stands is necessary for the proper operation of these traffic officers whom I see as having a very important role. I oppose the amendment.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I always rush to the defence of downtrodden, overworked, underpaid parliamentary counsel whenever I can, just in case I might be in need of them in the future. However, I rush even more to their defence if they are accused of doing something when their intent is diametrically opposite. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, says that of course they want as much breadth as possible and are always prone to this weakness when it comes to drafting legislation. Our interpretation of the word "incidental" is that it will in fact narrow the competence of the officers. The amendment would broaden the responsibilities in such a way as to cause a frisson of horror among parliamentary counsel.
    The great danger at this stage is that we start dancing upon the point of the dictionary pin when it comes to interpreting words. The noble Viscount's preferred word, "connected", is quite wide in its associations. It is linked to the activity which would fall within traffic officers' competence. However, "incidental" indicates subordinate to or lesser than the other powers identified.
    The noble Viscount shares the anxieties we all have of others appropriating to themselves powers they ought not to have unduly. But on this occasion, we are in favour of the restriction and he, mistakenly, is in favour of broadening it.
    Viscount Astor: What a wonderfully robust defence of those who draft Bills. I am sure they appreciate it; indeed. I do, because I know they are doing their best to get it right. I must defer to them if their meaning of "incidental" is better than mine. If that is the case, I am grateful to the Minister because his answer solves one of my problems. I hope that he will see that I put down the amendment not to be mischievous—that is the last thing I would do—but to ensure that the clause meant what the Minister has clearly explained that it does mean. He has said that it narrows the provision, and I am extremely grateful for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 not moved.]
    Clause 5 agreed to.
    Clause 6 [Powers to stop or direct traffic]:
    [Amendments Nos. 23 to 32 not moved.]
    On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Viscount Astor: Clause 6 deals with powers to stop or direct traffic. I am initiating this debate simply to test the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform on this clause. The report argues that the powers to stop traffic within this clause, along with those to place temporary traffic signs in Clause 7, are significant. The Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly will have the power to confer further powers by order under Clause 8. The report states that although the power,
    "is limited by the fact that the further power must be considered necessary for the purpose of facilitating the performance of duties which may be assigned to traffic officers (clause 8(2)), the range of duties which may be assigned is wide".
    It continues:
    "The order-making power includes power to provide for enforcement through criminal sentences … and a Henry VIII power lo make supplemental, incidental, transitional or consequential provision".
    Will the Minister explain whether the power could be used, for example, to give traffic officers a further power of arrest? Do the Government have any thoughts on what further powers might be needed? If they do not need further powers, I wonder why the provision is in the Bill. I should be grateful for the Minister's reply.
    Viscount Goschen: When we were debating Amendment No. 1, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, correctly drew the Committee to order by saying that we were in fact discussing nomenclature. We strayed rather wide and went on to discuss the powers of traffic officers to stop motorists. Perhaps this is the most appropriate part of the Bill at which to return to the issue. I am not sure that we have had a satisfactory explanation from the Minister of how the provision will work. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred to the number of police officers and sought assurances that there would be no reduction. I am concerned about confusion regarding roles not only among police and traffic officers and between the two agencies but in the minds of motorists.
    GC 18
    The Minister assured me that the power to stop or direct traffic was available to the traffic officer only when he was stationary. I have looked carefully through Clause 6 but I did not see that restriction. I wonder whether the Minister can point out where that is stated in the Bill.
    Secondly, in connection with Amendment No. 1, I raised the issue of the education of motorists. I am not sure that the Minister explained the matter satisfactorily. We are struggling with these issues in the drafting of the Bill, having read the relevant papers and listened to the Second Reading debate. I am not sure that all motorists will necessarily have listened to the Second Reading debate, although clearly it would have been in their interests to do so. For example, what will the Highway Code state with regard to motorists' reactions to traffic officers? Unless these issues are crystal clear, I suggest that the room for confusion might well lead to a reduction in safety.
    Lord Bradshaw: I wonder that anyone might be so bereft of something to listen to that they would listen to the Second Reading debate of the Traffic Management Bill, if' it were broadcast.
    Do the powers to stop or direct traffic definitely include the power to divert traffic? Clause 6 contains the words "to stop the vehicle". I understand and support that power. Clause 6 also refers to the power of a traffic officer to make a vehicle,
    "proceed in, or keep to, a particular line of traffic".
    However, does a traffic officer have the power to intervene at a road junction and send traffic in a particular direction?
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. The point with which I most disagree was that raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, concerning whether the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was anxious about the extensive powers contained in the clause that we are discussing. That is not the case. However, the committee expressed real anxiety on certain parts of the Bill that we shall discuss. A government amendment has been brought forward to take account of those anxieties. We shall discuss that in due course. The committee did not criticise Clause 6, although other Members of this Committee have expressed anxiety about it.
    I wish to deal with the specific points that were raised. The straightforward answer is that traffic officers will have the power to divert traffic, but that is an advisory not a mandatory power. They can put in place diversion signs but whether drivers obey those signs is a question of the laws that relate to driving rather than laws in respect of following a traffic sign. Traffic officers certainly need to have the power to erect such signs to divert traffic. Without such a power the management of traffic following an incident could not take place. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that the necessary powers exist but not quite in the form that he suggested. Perhaps we can debate that matter a little further in due course.
    I turn to the matter raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. He is absolutely right; it is not the Government's intention to rely upon the public having

    GC 19
    read the Second Reading debate of the Bill in the House of Lords to gain an understanding of its provisions, valuable though such an exercise would be. We shall need to engage in a substantial process of information and communication with the public on the role of traffic officers and explain why certain aspects of their role will need to be complied with by the travelling public for the convenience of all.
    I think I perhaps slightly misled the Committee— and I apologise if I did—with regard to whether the vehicle could be moving when indicating a sign to the public. I was seeking at the time to disavow the notion that traffic officers would be in hot pursuit—if I recall the debate—with their lights flashing in the rear-view mirror of a vehicle and acting like highway police patrols. I now seek to disabuse the committee of that notion.
    It is the case that the traffic officer might be directed by a police officer. It might be through communication—as I think the illustration has shown—that further away from the incident action needs to be taken to slow down traffic. As the noble Lord clearly indicated, slowing down traffic on our motorways is not a task undertaken lightly. Signs have to be abundantly clear. Traffic officers will have the ability to get motorway communication signs up and their vehicles will have the ability to make the same kind of signals for slowing down traffic that a police car would make if it were at the same point. I wanted to clear up that point. I do not think that I was entirely accurate earlier in the way I responded to what was a rather different issue.
    4.30 p.m.
    Viscount Astor: The Minister has somewhat confused me. It may be my fault, but I should be grateful for some elucidation. If I heard him correctly, he said that under the powers that traffic officers will have, they would not have the power to force anyone to do anything. In effect he was saying that if they say, "Please join a single line of traffic and go down that lane", and for some reason someone in a car says, "I don't wish to", they do not have to do so. I do not read that in the Bill. Perhaps I have the matter wrong. I should be grateful for the Minister's enlightenment.
    Clause 6(1)(a)(ii) states that a traffic officer has power when he is engaged in the regulation of traffic on a road, to direct a person driving or propelling a vehicle,
    "to make it proceed in, or keep to, a particular line of traffic".
    Clause 10 deals with offences. Subsection (5)(a) and (b) state that it is an offence to fail to comply with.
    "a direction given in relation to that vehicle under a power conferred by section 6, or … section 7".
    Am I not right in thinking that an offence is committed if a motorist does not comply with a request or an order—however one would like to put it—given by a traffic officer? It seems to me that that is what the Bill says. I was therefore rather confused by the Minister's response.
    GC 20
    I may have the issue entirely wrong; I should be grateful for the noble Lord's response.
    Lord Marsh: Perhaps I may pursue the matter. Clause 7(2) and (3), the proposed amendments to Sections 35 and 37 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and those to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, confer most of the powers a police constable would have in these circumstances and the authority that goes with it to the traffic officers. I should like to know whether that is a correct understanding.
    Lord Bradshaw: That worries me. I think we are getting to the nub of one of the real issues of the Bill. If these people are there to make best use of road space in an increasingly congested motorway network they need to have two quite clear powers. First, they need to be able to stop as quickly as possible vehicles going towards the scene of an accident. That more or less means switching on a sign on the vehicle which says "Stop", "Proceed cautiously", or something similar. One cannot transmit many signs on a fast moving motorway. They need the power to do that.
    Secondly, they need a power to get people off the motorway or trunk road in those circumstances. One does not actually want people going down a cul-de-sac towards an accident where they perhaps they may be trapped for two or three hours with all kinds of problems which arise in that case. The issue needs clarification, as I am sure it will give rise to much confusion.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: This does need clarification, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have addressed this point with great accuracy and who have pressed me. I have been less clear than I should have been up to now' and I want to be as clear as it is within my power to be.
    The traffic officers will need these powers, and they are police powers. They will need the powers to warn and, in certain circumstances, to instruct the travelling public to obey. I was seeking to indicate—I think that is where the point of confusion occurred—that traffic officers are not police officers. They do not supplant police officers in their powers because they cannot enforce such restrictions. They can place restrictions, and it will be an offence, enforceable by the police, if their instructions are not complied with. However, they are not the arresting authority. That was why I was eager to emphasise earlier that they will not be a red light in the rear-view mirror pursuing an errant motorist. That is not their role.
    I agree with noble Lords in all their points. Will these officers have the powers necessary to attend at a point of congestion, to stop traffic where it is dangerous for it to proceed and to divert traffic when it is advantageous to the travelling public that such diversions should take place? The answer is that they certainly will have those powers. At the present time such activities are carried out by police officers and will in the future be carried out by traffic officers.

    GC 21
    However, enforcement will still be the responsibility of the police because traffic officers are not police officers, with the power of arrest.
    Viscount Goschen: What happens when there is a serious accident, the traffic officer puts down a sign saying "Stop" and motorists do not stop? A policeman would get in his vehicle, put the blue light on, and make sure that those motorists did stop. I am concerned that there will be confusion when an officer has the power to tell people to do something but not the power to do anything about it if they refuse. I am seriously concerned that road safety could be compromised in these circumstances.
    Viscount Astor: Before the Minister speaks, perhaps I can help him. He can deal with both points, which are similar.
    I understood the Minister to say that if the motorist ignored the instructions of the traffic officer, he would be committing an offence under the Bill, but the traffic officer would not have the power to arrest him. Presumably, however, the traffic officer would have the ability to, for example, take down the number plate of a car, inform the police, who could take further action. I am assuming that to be the case, and it is connected with the point made by my noble friend Lord Goschen.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Viscount is not only striving to be helpful, but he is extremely helpful. He has expressed the matter better than I could.
    Lord Marsh: It seems to me that the point is clear— it is or it is not. Subsection (4), which refers to the Road Traffic Act 1988, states:
    "In section 163 of that Act (power of police to stop vehicles), in subsections (1) and (2) after 'uniform' there is inserted 'or a traffic officer"'.
    That leads me to suppose that a traffic officer is being given similar powers to those of the police constable under that Act. I am quite prepared to go on talking for a moment if the Minister wants to look at the advice he has been given. It is an important point, and it may be more complicated than I think it is. However, as I read this, if the amendments proposed to the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 are as simple as I think, they seem to meet the point made and give the traffic officers the powers of the police in those circumstances. I may be wrong, of course.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I was trying to reassure the Committee that, as the noble Lord indicated, traffic officers will take on certain police powers. Their signs will be mandatory. The difference is that, if the police place mandatory signs and someone breaks the law at that point, a police officer can take the immediate action of arrest. The traffic officer would do exactly what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, indicated. He would make clear the identification of the offence and
    GC 22
    that the legally applied requirement of the traffic officer had not been complied with, and, in due course, it would be prosecuted.
    Viscount Goschen: I make a final intervention because I sense that we are not getting far on this issue. I am concerned that these officers will have powers to do things but without the authority to do anything about it if people do not obey them. For example, people respect and obey a police officer who slows down the column of traffic on a motorway, but I am concerned that a new breed of officer will be doing that. In theory, one would not have to obey his commands. If one did not, the officer would not have any immediate ability to do anything about it. Does that mean that police officers will have to accompany traffic officers almost the whole time?
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I do not think that we should make too much of this situation. After all, we are all forever driving past temporary roadworks where traffic lights have been installed but where there is no policeman to carry out the immediate arrest of anyone who disobeys the lights. Everyone knows that, if you drive through such a red light, you are almost certain to be observed because anyone working there, by definition, will have his own safety at stake and will certainly take steps to provide the necessary evidence.
    Traffic officers will be empowered to place mandatory signs. We shall communicate their powers to the public so that people know that they are duly authorised to act when incidents occur. They will adopt police powers. They will not be able to do what a policeman can do, which, in the most extreme case, would involve an immediate arrest.
    Viscount Astor: It has been useful to debate Clause 6 and the powers that it contains. I think that Members of the Committee are clearer as to what the powers are. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation.
    I mentioned Clause 8, but perhaps I should leave that to the debate on whether the clause shall stand part. The Minister did not deal with it and so I shall deal with it then. I am grateful for his contribution to the debate. It has been of enormous use in aiding the Committee's understanding of the clause.
    Clause 6 agreed to.
    Clause 7 [Powers to place temporary traffic signs]:
    [Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
    Clause 7 agreed to.
    Clause 8 [Power to confer further special powers on traffic officers]:
    [Amendments Nos. 35 to 37 not moved]
    On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Viscount Astor: I referred to the powers in Clause 8 when we discussed Clause 6. They are similar and connected. Clause 8 provides for very wide powers. I accept that they have to be made by the Secretary of

    GC 23
    State and that a draft order has to be laid and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Clause 8(1) states:
    "The appropriate national authority may by order made by statutory instrument confer further special powers on traffic officers".
    I am not clear what they are. I realise of course that there are major thoroughfares that are not part of the trunk road or motorway system—for example, the Mersey Tunnel is not part of the trunk road system, nor is it a major thoroughfare. Therefore, a traffic officer would need to have the powers for such matters. I imagine that various toll bridges may be included.
    Will the clause broaden the scope as regards the number of roads that may come within it? Do the Government consider that they would have to go further than just trunk roads? Rather than redesignate roads, will they include roads that, for example, link trunk roads or link a trunk road to a motorway? Or can Clause 8 be used to give traffic officers special powers of enforcement? Is that where the clause is going? What is the purpose? Is it about a geographical spread? Is it there to give traffic officers greater powers of enforcement? Why do the Government feel that the clause is necessary and what are the reasons for it? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten the Committee on why it is in the Bill. That would aid the Committee as it is an important area.
    4.45 p.m.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving me the chance to explain the importance of Clause 8, which provides a power for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to confer additional special powers on traffic officers by statutory instrument.
    The only special powers conferred on traffic officers by the Bill are those of stopping and directing traffic and placing traffic signs. We believe these powers will be sufficient for the officers to carry out their duties effectively. But we are concerned that if experience shows that additional special powers would be appropriate, then this clause allows such powers to be conferred without needing further primary legislation.
    This is an innovative concept. It is a radical new approach to traffic management on trunk roads and it represents a significant change in the Highways Agency culture and remit. Traffic officers will be operating in a demanding and exposed environment. As operational experience develops it may be that further special powers are identified that could make the traffic officer service more effective and efficient. The Highways Agency is certain to learn important lessons during the early years of operation. Clause 8 provides the ability to confer new special powers on traffic officers to ensure that they remain adequately empowered to carry out their duties effectively and safely and to so confer such powers over a relatively short period of time by using the speedier legislative process of secondary legislation.
    GC 24
    The clause contains clear limitations on both the extent of the powers which may be conferred as well as the purposes for which they may be exercised. First, the national authority would have to be satisfied that any such power would be necessary to facilitate the performance of the duties as set out in Clause 1(2); that is duties that relate to traffic management and the authority's functions as highway and traffic authority. Secondly, the exercise of special powers is subject to the restrictions set out in Clause 5, particularly subsection (3), which limits the purposes for which special powers may be used to assist traffic movement on motorways or other trunk roads, to prevent or reduce congestion on such roads, to avoid danger to persons or traffic on them, to prevent damage to the road or anything on or near the road, and for incidental purposes.
    We have no plans to expand the powers of traffic officers beyond those specified in the Bill. However, it might be decided in future that traffic officers should be able, for example, to check that vehicles are not overweight in order to protect valuable highway infrastructure. We do not think it is necessary now, but it is a possibility in terms of highway management. As we all know, congestion is caused partly by roadworks; roadworks are partly due to the weight of traffic; and traffic weight is crucially affected by individuals' compliance with load restrictions. However, we are not taking these powers now. We are merely indicating that, in due course, it might be felt that additional powers are necessary for the benefit of the travelling public.
    A statutory instrument could be made for the enforcement of such powers, including the creation of new offences. A power conferred without any provision for enforcement would be unlikely to carry credibility, and so we feel the ability to include enforcement provision is necessary. The instrument could also include any supplemental, incidental, transitional or consequential provisions necessary including by way of amending any primary or secondary legislation.
    The special powers conferred by the Bill are granted by extending to traffic officers certain existing statutory powers held by the police. This requires the amendment of or reference to the relevant statutes governing the police. It is likely that any additional special powers would be similarly granted by way of adoption of existing statutory provisions necessitating their amendment. Clause 8 would allow that to occur. In England, the SI would be made in Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. In Wales, the SI would be made by an affirmative vote of the National Assembly in plenary session.
    In setting up this innovative concept, which will aid the motoring public and has widespread support, we think that we are providing the requisite powers to do an effective job. In this clause we are merely giving ourselves the opportunity to learn from experience. If an additional power were to be necessary, it would be

    GC 25
    the subject of a statutory instrument that would require the affirmative support of both Houses of Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales.
    Viscount Simon: There are two separate matters to bear in mind. First, my noble friend mentioned overweight vehicles. The power to inspect such vehicles is already conferred on the Vehicle Inspectorate. Secondly, what is the view of senior police officers on the possibility that police powers will be conferred on these traffic officers at a later stage without primary legislation?
    Viscount Astor: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I can give him a chance to consider the question put by the noble Viscount. I should remind the Committee that, in its report on the Bill, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform said:
    "The Bill contains a formidable array of delegated powers".
    The one that it wished to draw to the Committee's attention was that in Clause 8. As the Select Committee and indeed the Minister pointed out:
    "The order-making power includes the power to provide for enforcement through criminal offences (but limited by the bill to summary offences) and a Henry VIII power to make supplemental, incidental, transitional or consequential provision".
    It goes on to say:
    "We draw this provision to the attention of the House because of the width of the power, and suggest that the House may wish to invite the Government to explain whether, for example, the power can be used to give traffic officers a power of arrest".
    The Minister has in effect said that the provision could be used to do that. I think that the Committee ought to beware of that and take it seriously. I can easily foresee a situation where an accident is caused by a grossly overweight lorry or a car without insurance, tax or MOT and its brakes do not work—or where someone just ignores the directions of the traffic officer and the police are not present—and there is a clamour from the Highways Agency and the traffic officers saying, "We need powers to enforce what you are trying to make us do". Would it not be useful to have such a power so that we can see whether people have paid the road tax or whether their tyres are balding? There will be a clamour to increase powers. There is no doubt that if they had such powers their lives might be more effective.
    The Committee and the House need to be aware that this issue will be raised. We need to consider whether we want such powers in the Bill. If your Lordships feel that it would be a retrograde step in terms of extending the powers albeit to admirable people, but in effect giving powers to officers who are not police officers, we should consider it carefully. Perhaps the Minister could tell the Committee what conversations there have been with the police forces in this country and with the Association of Chief Police Officers, and whether in certain circumstances they would approve of the extension of powers. Is that in the mind of the Government?
    It is an important issue because we need to know how such powers could be used. We can all foresee the clamour when the public suffer. The first thing that one would see would be headlines in a tabloid
    GC 26
    newspaper saying, "Traffic officers do not have the powers that they need, so what will the Government do about it?" We need to consider that. When the Minister replies to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, perhaps he could include a reply to those issues.
    Lord Berkeley: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I can expand on the matter. This is an occasion when Henry VIII did quite a good job. It depends whether one likes the clause or not. I believe that it is a very appropriate clause. My noble friend mentioned overweight vehicles, but there is also the issue of bridge strikes, which cause endless delays to rail and road travel. Similar things happen at level crossings. Whether we like it or not the Vehicle Inspectorate is not around much, as we have discussed many times in the House, although it carries out occasional checks. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, suggested earlier, will there be fewer police? There are not many police at the moment so this could be another opportunity for adding further powers in the future which I believe most law-abiding citizens would welcome, especially if the purpose of the Bill is fulfilled, which is to keep traffic moving. This is an important clause.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to my noble friend for his support and to other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. My noble friend Lord Simon will readily recognise that there is a Vehicle Inspectorate. Of course, the inspectors have no right to stop vehicles. We know the limitations of their role. In response to his second question about the police attitude in this regard, the Association of Chief Police Officers is satisfied with our provision in the Bill, provided that it is subject to adequate and proper parliamentary scrutiny. He will recognise that we have affirmative procedures linked to this matter.
    On the general issue of the power of arrest, which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised and which was the concern of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I can tell the Committee the Government's intent. In the other place the Government moved an amendment to make it absolutely clear that we do not intend to bestow the power of arrest on traffic officers.
    There was a suggestion in the other place that the Bill as drafted may give rise to such an interpretation. A government amendment struck out any ambiguity in that respect and made it absolutely clear that we do not intend to give traffic officers the power of arrest. That is in the Bill that is before the Committee.
    We have no plans to give powers to traffic officers in relation to enforcement, or to confer on them the power of arrest for the very simple reason that the Bill is about aiding the motorist and tackling congestion. We want the officers to be seen, and we expect them to act, in the role of motorists' friend. When incidents occur, they will facilitate motoring progress. To confer powers of arrest on such officers would significantly change their role and their perception in the eyes of the public. The publicity to which I alluded earlier when responding to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, will be necessary to educate the nation about the role of these innovative traffic officers as officers who will

    GC 27
    facilitate the progress of the motorist. Their role will not be concerned with punitive activity and will have nothing to do with powers of arrest. On that basis, perhaps the noble Viscount will feel able to accept the position.
    5 p.m.
    Viscount Astor: The Minister has been extremely helpful to the Committee in explaining Clause 8. I am grateful for his assurance that the powers will not be used to give traffic officers the power of arrest. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would quite like them to have powers of arrest. However, it begs the question: if they are not to be given powers of arrest, why do they need Clause 8 and what kind of powers will they be given? The Minister has not been particularly explicit on that. We may wish to return to the matter on Report and tighten up the powers that may be given. At the moment the provision gives the Secretary of State, although he has to return to Parliament, extremely wide-ranging powers. I accept that the Minister does not intend to use it to do that, and I am sure that that is the case. However, as we all know, Ministers and Secretaries of State change—in the Department for Transport they change quite often—and policies change. Of course I accept the assurances of the noble Lord. We may reconsider this matter, but in the mean time I am grateful for the response of the Government.
    Clause 8 agreed to.
    Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 38:
    After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—

    GUIDANCE AS TO EXERCISE OF TRAFFIC OFFICERS' POWERS
    (1) The appropriate national authority may—

    (a) publish guidance as to the exercise of any powers conferred on traffic officers by or under this Part, or

    (b) approve for the purposes of this Part any such guidance published by another person.

    (2) A traffic officer shall have regard to any such guidance in exercising any such powers to which the guidance is relevant.
    (3) Before publishing or approving any guidance under this section, the appropriate national authority shall consult and have regard to any representations made by—

    (a) such bodies representing the police,

    (b) such persons who exercise functions as undertakers in relation to street works or apparatus in streets, and

    (c) such other persons,

    as the authority considers appropriate.
    (4) In this section
    "undertakers" has the meaning given by section 48(4) and (5) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (c. 22), and
    "street works" has the meaning given by section 48(3) of that Act."
    The noble Lord said: This comprehensive proposed new clause has been put forward to ensure that traffic officers would have sufficient guidance to carry out their duties effectively, efficiently and with sensitivity to the uses of the Queen's highways. Having this provision on the face of the Bill would ensure
    GC 28
    consistency across England and Wales. Furthermore, it would provide a clear and approved understanding of the role of the traffic officer.
    As several noble Lords pointed out at Second Reading, and will repeat today, the traffic officers' goal of keeping traffic flowing must be tempered and moderated by the important objectives of our road network. One of those is road safety: the need to keep the roads safe for all road users is a topic that no doubt other noble Lords will deal with later. The objective of the amendment focuses on the need to provide and maintain other essential services.
    The Minister in another place indicated that the guidance issued will cover that point. We understand from discussions in another place that the Minister has confirmed that,
    "The Highways Agency is already in the process of introducing a governance and guide for traffic officers in exercising their duties and powers".
    We understand that liaison with the Association of Chief Police Officers to establish an operational framework should not be rushed. However, the Minister also indicated that,
    "there will be clear guidance on how officers should operate in connection with those who carry out work on the roads for the Highways Agency or the utilities".
    Can the Minister assure us that the utilities are also being included in the consultations? Can he indicate which organisations he is consulting on this? We have indications from various bodies that they are not being involved as they would desire to be. As I asserted, this amendment will provide a clear understanding of the powers and duties of the traffic officers as well as ensuring that the Government take account of the views of the utilities in drawing up their guidelines. I beg to move.
    Viscount Goschen: I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. Anything that helps introduce clarity into the exercise of traffic officers' powers, particularly in relation to the police and in the context of our debates on previous amendments, would be a good thing. I hope that the Minister agrees that requiring guidance to be published would help to ensure clarity.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to both noble Lords. As they will have anticipated, I have considerable sympathy with the arguments they have put forward on this proposed new clause. I hope to convince the Committee not of the merits and arguments behind the new clause, but simply that the new clause would be otiose because we already have the powers, as the Bill provides, to do exactly what the new clause suggests.
    The new clause is unnecessary because the appropriate national authority can already issue guidance. It does not need a specific statutory power to do that. It needs to issue guidance only when the authority is dealing with a third party. As the traffic officer service will be provided by the national authority, we do not need to provide a statutory power, and certainly not a statutory duty, in the Bill.

    GC 29
    In practice—as noble Lords have indicated, this is the merit behind this debate and behind their new clause—operational guidance is certainly a necessity. As the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, was generous enough to acknowledge, such guidance is already in an advanced stage of preparation. Very substantial consultation has taken place on the procedures and guidelines being established for traffic officer activities. Members of the Committee will recognise that that has been done by working very closely with the police, so that both parties are absolutely clear on the respective roles and responsibilities.
    The procedures cover all aspects of the service, from the high-level partnership arrangements and objectives to the detailed procedures that traffic officers must follow out on the road. There has also been extensive consultation with other stakeholders, including local authorities. maintenance contractors and breakdown recovery service organisations. I can assure the Committee that that consultation will continue.
    One aspect was raised in relation to motorways. I want to emphasise that our motorways, as all Members of the Committee will recognise, are special roads. There are severe restrictions on the ability of statutory undertakers to effect anything that may impede safe progress on our motorways. All agreements, procedures and protocols are being carefully documented and will be continuously reviewed and updated if necessary. If in the future the traffic officer service were to be provided by a third party, the work done to date would be incorporated into contracts that would be necessary in those circumstances.
    I recognise the merits behind the new clause in articulating matters that need to be done and consultation that needs to be carried out. I can assure the Committee that the statutory authorities have the power to do that and are doing it. I hope with that reassurance that the noble Lord will not feel the need to press the amendment.
    Lord Rotherwick: I thank the noble Lord for his assurances. It would have been more helpful if the Highways Agency had already published its governance and guide for the traffic officers. We would then have had more clarity in relation to this matter and may not have had to push the Minister for an explanation. We shall read his answer. I am grateful to him for trying to give greater clarity. If necessary we shall return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 9 [Removal of certain vehicles by traffic officers]:
    [Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.]
    Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 41:
    Page 5, line 19, at end insert—
    "(3) In any regulation made under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall not remove the right of a person present whose vehicle is to be removed pursuant to section 99(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (removal of vehicles illegally, obstructively or dangerously parked, or abandoned or broken down) to choose who shall remove the vehicle, unless it would, in the reasonable opinion of the traffic officer, be unreasonable to do so because of an imminent danger to persons using the road or because the vehicle is causing an obstruction on the road."
    The noble Viscount said: This is an important amendment and an important issue which concerns the motoring organisations, particularly the AA, the RAC and other organisations involved in aiding motorists. As the Bill stands we are concerned that there will be a detrimental effect not only on the motorist but also on how such organisations work in aiding the motorist. I recognise that there have been discussions between the Government and the organisations and that the Government have tried to be helpful, but they have not been able to go as far as they or we would wish. Therefore, we have tabled this amendment.
    My amendment will ensure that motorists will retain the right to call out a breakdown operator of their choice. Despite assurances from the Minister in another place that there is no intention that traffic officers should find an alternative recovery service, my legal advice suggests that Clause 9, as it stands, currently gives the Highways Agency free rein to assume a policy of removing a number of broken-down vehicles.
    I recognise that this is a difficult area and so my amendment has been drafted to take account of the concerns that were raised in the other place by the Minister when this issue was debated. I remind the Committee that the motoring organisations are concerned only with breakdowns on the side of the road; they do not interfere, and never have done, with breakdowns on a carriageway. That has always been a matter for the police, and will remain a matter for the police as there are important safety aspects. Motoring organisations like the AA and RAC deal only with vehicles that are at the side of the road and not on the carriageway.
    My amendment does not require traffic officers to make any decisions that they will not already have to make. It states unequivocally that the final decision on whether a motorist is allowed to call his breakdown service provider still rests with the traffic officer at the scene. Thus, it maintains sufficient flexibility for the traffic officer to tackle unforeseen problems, while recognising the essential role played by the breakdown service providers.
    Therefore, I do not understand why the Government cannot put the assurance that they have given on to the face of the Bill if that is their true intention. Some confusion was brought about by an article in the Birmingham Post on 17 April, which referred to highway officers patrolling motorways to help drivers on a trial basis. In the light of that, I should be interested to know from the Minister whether the Highways Agency officers took the power to carry out that trial. Perhaps the Minister could tell us when he has the results.
    There are several reasons why I believe that the Bill, unamended, would be detrimental to road users. First, I believe that it could lead to a doubling-up of resources. The RAC alone states that 70 to 80 per cent of their customers call for help from mobile phones. Therefore, in many cases, the breakdown organisations will have already been deployed before the Highways Agency becomes involved. The agency would also use the same pool of contractors.
    Secondly, the Bill will enable the Highways Agency to charge drivers a standard charge for removing broken-down vehicles. That charge has been £105 since 1993 and is now under review. Can the Minister tell us what progress has been made on the review and indicate to what level it has been decided to increase the charge?
    Thirdly, the Bill could result in a reduction in the number of motorists who have breakdown cover. Thus, fewer road users would act responsibly and take out national breakdown insurance, and that would have a negative effect on congestion and safety across the wider road network.
    Lastly, we fear that, in effect, this measure could be an unnecessary government intervention in a competitive market. The motoring organisations currently rescue more than 90 per cent of all broken-down vehicles on this country's motorways. We do not believe that the Highways Agency should set a competitive service, nor, indeed, a monopoly service, which, in effect, it would have the power to do.
    As I said, the Government have given some assurances that that is not what they intend, but so far they have resisted any amendment to the Bill. I believe that the Government need to go further and that something needs to be placed on the face of the Bill to deal with the issue. I beg to move.
    5.15 p.m.
    Lord Bradshaw: Before the Minister responds, I add my name to that of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, as having an interest in this clause. The fact is that, if a motorist breaks down on the hard shoulder and he tells a traffic officer that he is a member of a recognised breakdown service—The AA, the RAC, Green Flag, the Environmental Transport Agency or whatever—those organisations will always be able to tell the traffic officer that the rescue service is on the way.I believe that rescue services normally tell people when they can expect to have their vehicle recovered. Therefore, I support the view that the traffic officer should be told, in guidance, that if information is available from the driver of a broken-down vehicle that the rescue service is on the way within a reasonable time, the traffic officer should not activate the powers that he has to call upon the breakdown contractor employed by the Highways Agency.
    However, I would ask the Minister to go a little further. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to the charges, which were fixed some time ago, for the removal of broken-down vehicles. Bearing in mind that many people who may not be members of breakdown organisations may be those whose cars are uninsured or unlicensed or that they may have been convicted of offences and are unlikely to pay the removal charges, what sanctions do the Government propose to take to recover the money when broken-down vehicles are removed from the hard shoulder?
    As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, mentioned, the majority of motorists are responsible enough to belong to an organisation which will remove their vehicles. But those who do not belong to such an organization
    GC 32
    are very likely to fall into the category of those who do not have a licence or pay for insurance or they may have a conviction. In addition, they may drive vehicles which are liable to break down because they probably care less for them than do other people and therefore they will have more need of the breakdown service.
    Who, ultimately, pays for the breakdown service if the person who is rescued does not have the wherewithal to pay for it? We are very familiar with the fact that, as motorists who pay for insurance, we all are paying for the large percentage of people who do not bother to take out insurance. I shall return to that subject later. We pay indirectly through an addition to our premium, which goes to the Motor Insurers' Bureau. All of us who pay our premiums presumably subsidise those who do not bother. We know that that costs a great deal of money, sometimes for the Exchequer and sometimes for insurance companies, but I should be grateful for some assurance on that point. I accept that if traffic officers arrive at the scene of a breakdown and the driver does not have breakdown cover, the vehicle must be removed. But I am very concerned about the financial arrangements which then apply.
    Lord Berkeley: I want to move the discussion on to what happens when lorries break down. However, before I do so, I understood from the noble Viscount's remarks that if a car were to break down on the hard shoulder, what he said would apply— that is, the AA, the RAC or a drivers' agency could rescue the car, but if it was on the carriageway, it would have to be rescued by the police. However, if the car is on the hard shoulder, it is not causing an obstruction. Therefore I should have thought that the need to remove a car in that situation would be less urgent.
    I turn to the subject of lorries. Some lorries have rescue contracts and some do not. There have been many instances of lorries causing obstructions—not necessarily on motorways; on trunk roads as well—when there has been a conflict between the driver's or owner's desire to save what is left of the load on the lorry and the need to get the lorry off the carriageway and thus speed up the flow of traffic. I am not sure what the role of traffic officers would be in such a scenario and how the rescue services would deal with lorries, which need rather specialist equipment to remove them. I should be grateful for my noble friend's comments on that.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on this important topic. It has caused considerable debate outside and, indeed, considerable representations have been made. There has been a great deal of correspondence between Ministers and organisations, which are rightly concerned about their interests in this area.
    I assure the Committee that the Government have no intention of setting up traffic officers as a competitive service, as, I believe, the noble Viscount envisaged, or anything approaching a monopoly service for breakdown activities on our trunk roads and motorways. That is not provided for in the Bill; nor is it the remotest intent of the Government to pursue such an objective.

    GC 33
    The reason that we disagree with the noble Viscount in his representations and want him to withdraw the amendment is that substantially we intend to continue with the regulations which govern the police and their activities in relation to breakdowns. We intend to transfer such responsibilities to traffic officers but shall do no more than that. The regulations are tried and tested. They have been subject to change over time, but the legislation on which they are based goes back over several decades.
    The noble Viscount will recognise that certain breakdown organisations have also existed for several decades—in fact, in one or two cases, for a century or more—and, in recent years, there have been new arrivals in the market. They have not experienced circumstances in which they have not been able to carry out their due and proper activities under these regulations, and we do not intend to change that position.
    The regulations do not confer a blanket removal power on the police. A constable may, indeed, remove a vehicle which has broken down or stopped and is causing an obstruction or possible danger to road users. He can also remove a vehicle which has broken down or stopped in breach of regulations—for example, parking prohibitions or controls—and he can deal with a vehicle which has broken down and appears to have been abandoned without lawful authority. That is what the regulations say and that is what we intend should continue so far as concerns traffic officers.
    In exercising those powers, traffic officers will have regard to the arrangements made by individual drivers who have broken down and to the effectiveness of those arrangements in dealing with the problem. They will want that information in order to assess what the appropriate and reasonable course of action on their part should be. They would need to take into account the relevant circumstances to assess whether the exercise of intervention and removal powers was practical and appropriate.
    Existing powers contain no qualification of the exercise of the police removal powers along the lines proposed in the amendment; nor do they make any mention of the potential role of the roadside assistance organisations or the possibility of a driver seeking assistance from friends, family or other motorists who may stop and offer assistance. Yet, without any of those considerations, organisations which assist those in distress in such circumstances have been able to carry out their activities with a conspicuous level of success.
    Neither Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act nor the current regulations in any way prevent citizens joining a roadside assistance organisation of their choice or calling them for help. But the regulations enable the police to make the necessary judgment as to the appropriate course of action. That is all we want traffic officers to be able to do.
    GC 34
    The current regulations also empower others, such as traffic wardens and community support officers, to remove vehicles which are causing an obstruction and are likely to cause danger to road users or which are illegally stopped or parked. Parking attendants have similar powers of removal in respect of vehicles which are parked or have broken down and are stopped on designated parking places. Again, no such qualification as proposed by the noble Viscount's amendment is included in the regulations.
    Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act provides a suitable framework for the powers to remove vehicles from the road. It has stood the test of time and we do not propose to change that. The traffic officers' role—I apologise to Members of the Committee if it is felt that I am reiterating this too often this afternoon—is to manage traffic in the event of collisions and other incidents. They will work alongside the police and other emergency services, maintenance and repair contractors, vehicle removal contractors—they will play their part, too—and others to clear incidents quickly, to keep traffic moving past the scene and via the network of local diversion routes, and to ensure that up-to-date information is fed through to motorists. They are not there to provide an alternative vehicle breakdown recovery service.
    The best organisations provide an excellent service. We are not in any way seeking to interfere with that, and they will be able to continue with their lawful business. It is the Government's intention to work closely with a wide range of organisations to ensure that any new regulations and operational arrangements are developed in an open and inclusive way, in addition to the formal consultation and secondary legislative processes required by the 1984 Act.
    The Highways Agency has set up a working group involving a wide range of representative bodies, including roadside assistance organisations, recovery contractors, road haulage organisations and the police. That group has already met with the intention of addressing the new regulations, the new Highways Agency contracts for statutory removal, and standards and protocols between the agency and the roadside assistance organisations and others who operate on the strategic road network.
    That is the position that we already have in place and, in our view, it works effectively. It is our intention to bring the traffic officers into that framework to ensure that these provisions work more effectively, but only within the powers that already obtain at present with regard to the police.
    I have been asked a number of specific questions. The benefit of making a rather lengthy reply on the principle behind the amendment is that I am able to delve deeply into the recesses of my resources in order to provide answers to specific questions, as I shall now attempt to do.
    The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about certain aspects of the breakdown procedure, including cost. The present fee, which is currently subject to review, is £105. However—I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this—the review will include other issues which also need to be considered in relation to the removal service. Therefore, we set up a working

    GC 35
    group with the Home Office, contractors, the RAC, the AA and others to work on those issues. The group has met once and it will continue to meet on this important matter.
    The noble Lord also asked me what would happen when a removal contractor took away a vehicle but did not get paid for his labours. The answer is that, under current regulations, he can keep the vehicle until someone pays the proper price for the work carried out. However, as the noble Lord hinted, that may not in all cases be worth the effort involved in removal.
    The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked me about the Birmingham trial. The traffic officers in that case did not have the powers which the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will confer upon them. Therefore, inevitably they were restricted to operating directly under the wing of police officers, carrying out support tasks and co-ordination of information to contractors, and so on. Limitations are involved in trials, but in all human experience there are always such limitations until all the powers are fully in force.
    My noble friend Lord Berkeley asked me about lorries which break down. When lorries are on the hard shoulder, that often requires the closure of an additional lane to allow for repairs and removal. Traffic officers will support that work and, indeed, their role will be crucial in directing traffic and placing signs. The lorries are usually repaired and removed by specialist contractors, which, as my noble friend recognises, is specialist work. Those who carry out such work receive their payments from the owners of the lorries; otherwise they fall foul of the point that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—that is, they do not get their lorries back.
    Therefore, on the more general issues, I reiterate that we understand the anxieties of reputable organisations. I think that the noble Viscount will recognise that Ministers in another place have been assiduous—I know that my honourable friend David Jamieson has been assiduous—in meeting representatives in order to provide the necessary reassurances. However. I emphasise that the Bill's main provision is to continue the regulations that have served us well until now. On that basis, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw the amendment.
    5.30 p.m.
    Lord Bradshaw: Before the noble Viscount replies, perhaps we can be clear on this point. The Highways Agency will employ the traffic officers. The traffic officers will be those who arrange to have the vehicle removed—be it a lorry, a bus or whatever—unless the person is a member of a reputable organisation, such as the RHA or the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which has a rescue service. I am concerned not to put the Highways Agency in a position whereby it sites a broken down vehicle, takes it away and faces the costs. Some rescued vehicles are probably not worth sufficient to bear the cost of both removal and repair. Often when such vehicles break down a significant sum is added to the towing cost before they are fit to be driven again.
    GC 36
    I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer the question. However, I hope that the matter will be taken into account in the review of charges so that the Highways Agency does not have a net charge on its books for vehicle recovery which should be defrayed by the road user.
    Viscount Astor: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask a question on the same issue. I am concerned about double charging. Should someone break down on the highway and the traffic officer come to their help and remove them from the highway to the hard shoulder or off the road, so that the AA or RAC recovery services can deal with it, will that movement be a chargeable action? Will they be charged—currently—£105? If so, how will they pay? Or will the charge apply only if the traffic officer organises the removal of the car to a garage, recovery point or whatever? When the Minister replies to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on the principles of the amendment, I would be grateful if he would kindly deal with that point.
    Viscount Simon: One thing that occurred to me is that most constabularies—I do not know whether it is all constabularies, but certainly a number of them—have rules regarding the time—one, two or three hours—that a broken-down vehicle can remain on the hard shoulder. They tell the owner of the broken-down vehicle that that is the case. They also tell the owner that after that time they can be towed away by whomever the police happen to choose. If this right is to be transferred to the Highways Agency traffic officers, will the same rules apply—be it one, two or three hours—and will leeway be given as the police give?
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I emphasise, first, as I have indicated, we are drawing on powers that already exist. So the Highways Agency's traffic officers will operate as regards removal only as the police do now. No charge applies to transferring the vehicle to the hard shoulder to get it out of the way as an obstruction. The charge applies when removal is made from the roadway to another safe place.
    I shall make the obvious point. I must admit that I did not emphasise it enough in my initial response to the Committee. The traffic officers will not have their own breakdown facilities. They do not have any more than the police have for immediate removal of vehicles. Traffic officers will act as police officers do now in terms of summoning the necessary support to deal with obstructions on the carriageway. Their concern will be to get the carriageway clear. That is what the traffic officer is there for, in the same way that that is the current responsibility of the police officer.
    On the question of the powers, I was touched by the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that the Highways Agency might fall into this dreadful trap of carrying out activity which is of great benefit to all motorists, but then having to sustain undue cost from the feckless few who have caused the problems. In the discussion about the proposed regulations we shall look very closely at the point he was seeking to identify—whether it would be necessary for the

    GC 37
    Highways Agency to even prosecute in order to recover the charges in which they might have been involved. The noble Lord will recognise that this is a complex area on which a significant amount of discussion needs to take place.
    I want to emphasise the main point: these traffic officers in respect of this particular activity will act as the police do now. As far as I know, relationships at national level between the police and breakdown organisations are cordial in the extreme and from time to time can have their more difficult moments in immediate incidents. But we all know the difficulties when immediate pressures are upon people. I see no reason why traffic officers should not enjoy the same good relationships with all concerned to make our highways safer and free from congestion.
    Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification that traffic officers will not charge motorists to get a vehicle from the road to the hard shoulder. We are still in effect in a situation where motorists can be charged twice because the motorist may have to call for their respective recovery service to help them.
    I am a little surprised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and a bit disappointed. He seemed to imply that one only breaks down on the motorway if one is driving a clapped-out car. He suggested that it is not worth collecting it because it is worth less than the cost. I broke down on the motorway the other day. My car is quite old and might be a little clapped-out, but I would be very disappointed to find that it was worth less than £105. That would come as an enormous disappointment when I tried to trade it in for something somewhat newer.
    The interesting part of the debate is that there is no difference between the Minister and myself on what we want. The difference is what is in the Bill. The Minister has been enormously helpful. I agree with everything he said about what we want and how we want it to operate. I am not sure that that is not what it says in the Bill. If we are in such agreement on the subject, the obvious point is why not accept my amendment? There is no problem. My amendment does not do anything that is in anyway in conflict with what the Minister has said: in fact it aids and abets. So there is no reason why the Government should not accept my amendment.
    I am aware that there has been correspondence between the Minister in another place and the RAC on the issue. The Minister said that he,
    will … consider … whether there is a need to set out more fully, in any future Regulations or in other guidance material, criteria for the removal of broken down vehicles by Traffic Officers".
    That is helpful, but it does not go far enough because he simply says that he will consider it. We need something firmer than that. While I am grateful for the Minister's response, the Government will have to move further between now and Report, otherwise we shall bring back this amendment and seek to persuade your Lordships of its importance and validity. There is nothing in the amendment to which the Minister can object because it does nothing that the Government does not want. We know that there is always a natural
    GC 38
    reluctance for Ministers to accept amendments, but I am sure that the noble Lord is a generous person and does not have that natural reluctance. I hope he will look carefully at the issue between now and Report because the matter is important.
    I recognise that the Government are trying to be helpful, but I hope the Minister will recognise that we feel that the Government need to go further than they have done thus far. Unless we can make real progress, this is a matter to which we shall return on Report and which we shall seek to put on to the face of the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    5.45 p.m.
    Clause 9 agreed to.
    Clause 10 [Offences]:
    [Amendments Nos. 42 to 48 not moved.]
    Clause 10 agreed to.
    Clause 11 [Uniform]:
    [Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
    Clause 11 agreed to.
    Clause 12 [Power to charge for traffic officer services provided on request]:
    [Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
    Clause 12 agreed to.
    Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved Amendment No. 51:
    After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—

    WORK OF TRAFFIC OFFICERS: ANNUAL REPORT
    A report on the scale, activities and effectiveness of the work of the traffic officers shall be presented on an annual basis to Parliament by the Secretary of State."
    The noble Lord said: The amendment is supported by what I believe to be a unique coalition—certainly in my experience—of the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Rotherwick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who have kindly supported other amendments that I have tabled for this Committee.
    This amendment seeks to establish a procedure for the publication of an annual report on the work of traffic officers. In other words, it would give Parliament the opportunity to monitor and scrutinise the impact of their work each year. I imagine that a number of straightforward aspects would be included in that report, such as the cost of running the service, the degree to which the work of the officers has contributed to tackling congestion, and the contribution they have made to increasing road safety and to keeping traffic moving.
    It is also important that the Government bear in mind that there is huge support for the Bill, particularly among road safety organisations. As this is the first time that I have spoken this afternoon, I declare an interest as President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—an unworthy successor to my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, who talked me into taking on that job when he joined the Government. While there is enormous support for the

    GC 39
    Bill, there are two concerns which the publication of an annual report would help to address. Both issues were referred to earlier.
    One is the need for assurances that the work of traffic officers to keep traffic moving after a serious road incident does not conflict with the police investigation into it. It will also be important for the report to demonstrate that there is appropriate guidance and training of traffic officers to show that they are able to deal with incidents and respond to them.
    The second issue, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is the question of what the 550 traffic police will be doing if they are freed up for other duties as a result of the establishment of the Highways Agency's traffic officers. There is much concern that there has been such a decline in traffic police numbers—around 12 per cent of designated roads police between 1997–98 and 2001–02. It is essential that that is also monitored.
    Such matters as those can be included in an annual report. I hope that it is not a controversial proposal and I hope that the Government will see fit to support the amendment. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I wish to offer my support, although I did not put my name to the amendment. I am sure that a report to Parliament with such information will be a riveting read and I expect that people will speak of little else in the pubs of Needham Market when it comes out. I look forward to many happy hours reading it. The amendment is important when considered in the context of the powers that are allowed for in Clause 8. If we are to have a Bill that contains so much authority for the Government to introduce wide-ranging new powers by statutory instrument, the basis upon which we assess whether those powers are needed and the effect of those provisions is important and needs to be sound. On this occasion, unusually for me, I support the production of yet another glossy document for parliamentarians.
    Viscount Astor: I have added my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I am sure that the Minister will say that an annual report on the work of the traffic officers could be incorporated within that of the Highways Agency, or something like that. That is, of course, correct and, no doubt, we are all used to reading Highways Agency reports avidly when we cannot go to sleep at night. Such reports state how much money has been spent, how many people are employed and various other facts.
    One of the reasons that I support the amendment is because of the very issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised about the powers contained in Clause 8. The amendment requires a report on the "activities and effectiveness" of the traffic officers. That is the important part, because otherwise we shall just have a normal departmental report on how much money they have spent, how wonderful they are, what
    GC 40
    their pension contributions are or whatever. It will not reveal what we really wish to know and what Parliament will consider in future. I am absolutely convinced that the Government, in whatever shape or form, will be under enormous pressure to come back and change the powers of the traffic officers.
    So we will clearly need to know, over a period, how effective traffic officers have been. This is the way that the matter should be dealt with so that the department has to explain its activities and how effective they are. When we deal with such issues in future we shall be able to judge the criteria and see how well the system is working.
    Viscount Goschen: I support the amendments for the reasons put forward, particularly by my noble friend Lord Astor, and with the provision, perhaps, of a sunset clause on the matter. We wish to avoid endless piles of documents and having to come back with primary legislation to amend the Act. I would have thought that if the system has not worked itself out within the first five to 10 years of operation, then there will be a serious problem. So, publishing an annual report for up to, say, ten years would be a worthwhile exercise. I suggest that after that, we will all have become bored with it, we will have forgotten about the matter and may wish to move on to another set of officers.
    Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I hope that I can reassure everyone who has taken part in the debate that we are all on the same side. An annual report of the Highways Agency's work is already presented to Parliament. It includes a thorough report of its activities and its achievements against a set of performance indicators. It is quite a tough document. This reporting requirement will in the future include details of the new traffic officer service. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner suggested, he has anticipated some of the matters that will be in the report. We expect to report on the effectiveness of service including the impact of congestion, safety benefits, costs and public perception gained through customer services. We would certainly take on board my noble friend's two points—matters which he wished very specifically to see in the annual report.
    I hope that I have persuaded noble Lords that this will not be, as the noble Viscount. Lord Astor, said, a woolly annual point about pensions and everything else. We take on board absolutely the need to report annually in a very hard and objective way. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
    Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I think that that is a rather encouraging and helpful reply. I appreciate what my noble friend has just said. I also very much welcome the support from noble Lords opposite who spoke earlier in the debate. It is important that this information is not just lost in the Highways Agency annual report. The work has to be properly highlighted and it has to give rise to a proper discussion. That may be one way in which the concerns of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, about it being

    GC 41
    an unnecessary publication can be avoided. However, as long as the information is published and made available to Parliament and an opportunity is given for a debate to take place on it, then I think that that will meet the requirements that I set out in tabling the amendment. With that assurance, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 13 [Power to acquire land]:
    [Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 not moved.]
    Clause 13 agreed to.
    Clause 14 [Financial assistance to authorised persons]:
    [Amendments. Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]
    Clause 14 agreed to.
    Clause 15 [Interpretation of Part 1]:
    [Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
    Clause 15 agreed to.
    Clause 16 [The network management duty]:
    Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved Amendment No. 58:
    Page 7, line 22, after "expeditious" insert ", convenient and safe"
    The noble Lord said: It is the same gang of four who signed this amendment as signed the one we have just discussed. I am very pleased indeed to move Amendment No. 58 and to speak also to the others that are grouped with it. This is what one could describe as the road safety group of amendments in the Committee today. What I want to achieve by tabling the amendments is to ensure that the network management duty on local authorities does not conflict with road safety aims. The network management duty, of course, is to secure the expeditious movement of traffic. It is important that that objective is not pushed to the fore in a way that ignores the needs of all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.
    This amendment would clarify the point. It does so by repeating the phrasing on network management found in earlier Acts of Parliament. For example, Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 places a duty on local authorities,
    "to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians)".
    That phrasing also appears in Section 42 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.
    My other amendment, Amendment No. 73, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60, through to Amendment No. 65, deals with the issue of road hierarchies, so that local authorities would be enabled to undertake an analysis of roads according to their current and desired function, to redesignate them and to set speed limits accordingly. The principles underlying that issue were laid out in the Government's road safety strategy, Tomorrow's Roads: Safer for Everyone.
    Road hierarchies would have substantial road safety benefits, as they would allow speed limits and road safety measures to be implemented on the basis of road usage and road risk. Tomorrow's Roads suggested that primary legislation would be necessary to introduce that; and Clause 18 of the Bill would seem to
    GC 42
    be a suitable legislative opportunity. Road hierarchies would also create a framework for the effective management of traffic by allowing local authorities to categorise roads by desired function. I beg to move.
    6 p.m.
    Lord Rotherwick: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 94. Clause 31 talks about the word "traffic" including pedestrians and I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, says about bicycles—as an avid bicyclist myself too, would like to be certain that "traffic" includes bicycles. However, looking at the matter, I wonder whether "traffic" should mean all road users.
    It is not just bicycles that we should consider. There is the question of horses—we see them moving to Hyde Park, with many types of people riding them. We see hunts crossing main roads. Indeed, what about the Household Cavalry going to mount a guard? Will we see a mounted traffic officer in the near future? What about mounted guardsmen at St James's? Will we see a traffic officer take over from the police and relieve them of that duty? What about demonstrations? What about the Notting Hill carnival? Is it envisaged that the traffic officers should look after those people? Should the interpretation of "traffic" not just include pedestrians and bicycles, but all legal road users? Perhaps the Minister could answer those questions.
    Lord Bradshaw: I rise to say that we are perfectly content with the amendments and believe that they add to the Bill. They cover types of traffic or people who are frequently ignored by local traffic authorities. I do not believe that this has anything to do with traffic officers. This is a separate issue of the management of networks by local government. It is opportune to make it obligatory on such people to consider cyclists and pedestrians and, taking the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, it is important that we consider horses and other road users.
    Lord Berkeley: I shall speak to all of the amendments in the group, particularly those in my name—Amendments Nos. 61, 65 and 94. I believe that we are all trying to achieve the same objective, which is to make sure that all road users are included—and I welcome my noble friend's confirmation that "roads" in this case include footpaths and pavements, and that is important. I am being somewhat cautious, having regard to the debate on whether Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill, when my noble friend the Minister tried to say that traffic officers would be the motorists' friends. That is clearly welcome, but I hope that they will equally be the pedestrians' friends, the guardsmen's friends, the cyclists' friends and friends of anyone else who uses the highway.
    Therefore, it is important that the needs of all road users are taken into account when considering the question of securing the expeditious movement of traffic. I expect that eventually traffic officers will have targets and guidance on that to accompany the Bill. When we begin to have indicators to measure congestion, we shall also need some measurement of

    GC 43
    safety and of ease of transit for pedestrians and cyclists as well as motorised vehicles. I am not sure how that would be done, but one can give many examples.
    When one crosses Hyde Park Corner as a pedestrian or cyclist, one sees that the traffic lights are set to ease the flow of road vehicles. A cyclist or a pedestrian travelling at a normal rate faces a red light every time, but car drivers do not. I hope that my noble friend will take that matter into account when considering the issue of guidance. I believe that Transport for London is doing a great deal to help in that respect, but many other local authorities are considerably worse. They make pedestrians wait. You press the button to cross the road and you have to wait for a minute-and-a-half before the light turns green because it is always set on green for the road users. Why should pedestrians not be able to move on immediately as car drivers do?
    I believe it is terribly important that all the network management duties apply to all users equally. I, together with other noble Lords who have spoken to the amendments, am not convinced that all the amendments fit together. However, I am sure that if my noble friend accepts the principle, someone can come up with a grouping which responds to all the concerns that we have identified.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: The grouping of these wide-ranging amendments gives us the chance to debate a very important consideration—the question of the safety of traffic. I use the word "traffic" because I shall argue strongly that it should be recognised that traffic certainly includes cyclists. In an increasingly wide range of local authority obligations, "traffic" also relates to the proper rights of pedestrians. I heard what my noble friend Lord Berkeley has just emphasised. There are many ways in which pedestrians can feel that their interests are not taken into account in the same way as are other types of traffic.
    However, the response to the broad issue of safety is clear. My noble friend Lord Faulkner, speaking from his great experience of safety issues, referred to Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, which contains the phrase "convenient and safe". As he will recognise, the provisions of that Act remain in force. Therefore, we take an overarching and governing position with regard to the obligations, which include the very important concepts of safety that he emphasised. The question is whether the Bill would be enhanced if we explicitly added the concepts of safety and the convenience of traffic when traffic officers exercised their duty.
    In drafting the duty, we have been concerned to ensure that the expeditious movement of traffic is not at the expense of other obligations, policies and objectives. That is explicit in Clause 16(1). The existing responsibilities and duties of local authorities remain as before. As I have indicated, they include the important issue of safety. Of course safety is important, and it will remain a high priority.
    We have purposely avoided including lists of obligations to avoid appearing to attach less importance to others by virtue of omission. Anything that was not included in any such list would look as if it were no longer the responsibility
    GC 44
    and duty of traffic officers. That is why I wish to defend what I recognise my noble friend has found a degree of fault with. I seek to defend the general concept of the responsibility while he, quite rightly, emphasises that that must include safety. I want to give him an assurance that it certainly does.
    Ultimately, the objective in this part of the Bill is to encourage authorities to devote more attention to managing their road networks actively and to manage the traffic using them. We would not wish to lessen the focus of the legislation by including other issues, no matter how worthy—and I cannot think of any more worthy than the one which my noble friend has introduced of safety—on the face of the Bill. The guidance on the network management duty is probably the place to draw out these points while maintaining the duty in a meaningful form.
    Amendments Nos. 60 and 64 seek to make an explicit reference in Clause 16 to the fact that in the context of the network management duty, traffic includes pedestrians. Amendments Nos. 59 and 63 aim to enhance this by stating quite clearly that the term covers more than vehicles. Similarly, Amendments Nos. 61 and 65 seek to reinforce the term "traffic" by providing that it includes cyclists and pedestrians. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley deals specifically with cyclists.
    Clause 31 already states explicitly that traffic includes pedestrians, and, of course, cyclists are included in traffic. Elaboration on the scope of the duty is surely best left to guidance which the appropriate national authority can issue under Clause 18. The draft of the guidance, which has been placed before the Committee, clearly draws out the fact that pedestrians are covered by this duty. I emphasise again that cyclists are already widely accepted to be traffic and authorities clearly need to take account of their needs.
    Amendment No. 73 relates to road hierarchies. I do not think that this would have a great deal of effect. Clause 17(5)(a) covers the issue of hierarchies by requiring that the arrangements authorities make to meet the duty must include specific policies or objectives in relation to the different roads or classes of road. Clause 18 allows the guidance to cover any other matter relating to the performance of the duties imposed by Clauses 16 and 17. On that basis, I think the issue which my noble friend raised about hierarchies of roads is covered.
    That leaves me, at the last, with the question of guardsmen and those on horses. I remind the Committee that, as Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, I have the interests of my fellow officers very much in mind, whether they are on foot or on horseback. I certainly would not be party to a Bill which in any way, shape or form infringed their safety while going about their lawful and essential business. So I assure the noble Lord that when we refer to "traffic", we also include horses.
    6.15. p.m.
    Earl Russell: If the Minister will forgive me, there is one category that he has not mentioned, and that is skateboarders. Do they count as pedestrians or as vehicular traffic? The question is a worrying practical one.
    Lord davies of Oldham: The answer that am being given is singularly inappropriate; namely, that it is a grey area. I should have thought that, whatever skateboarders may be, they do not comprise a grey area. I cannot give an immediate answer to the noble Earl but I shall take his question on board. When we considered whether we had covered all aspects of traffic, I must say that is one consideration that eluded us. It ought not to have done. I am grateful to the noble Earl for reminding us of it.
    Lord Tordoff: While the noble Lord conducts that intense research on skateboards, will he please include roller skates as well?
    Lord Lucas: I hope that I may ask a similarly tactful question; does the road network include BOATs?
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I do not know whether the noble Lord refers to boats that are powered or to boats that are towed behind vehicles.
    Lord Lucas: I refer to byways open to all traffic.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: We are talking about highway traffic. I have yet to see a boat sail up any of our motorways or trunk roads.
    Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am sure that the Committee would not object if my noble friend wished to reinforce his point about his duties as Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard if he were to wear his uniform at the next sitting of this Committee.
    I appreciate very much what my noble friend said in response to the debate. He made a number of very important points. I should like to look particularly carefully at what he said about safety. I am not sure that safety can be omitted simply because one does not want to create a list. I shall want to look very carefully at the wording that he used. As I say, I appreciate the way in which he responded to the debate. I also appreciate the contributions that other noble Lords have made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Berkeley: Before my noble friend does so, I hope that I may return to the words,
    "securing the expeditious movement of traffic".
    As has been said, that phrase includes cyclists and pedestrians. Clause 31 states, at line 17, page 14, that "'traffic' includes pedestrians". I wish to press my noble friend a little further on that point. If "traffic" includes pedestrians, surely it would not do any harm to include cyclists in particular in that definition in Clause 31, which applies to Part 2 of the Bill. Then there would be no need to have any amendments on cyclists with regard to Clause 16. Adding the two
    GC 46
    words "cyclists and- to the definition in Clause 31 after the word "includes" would make the cyclist lobby, which is quite vociferous, very happy.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I am very eager to make the cyclist lobby happy, not least because there is an intensive lobby in this House and in the other place in the form of the parliamentary cycling group. However, when we refer to other traffic we include all traffic other than pedestrians. The reason we specify pedestrians is that they are additional to all traffic whereas cyclists and officers on horseback are part of all traffic.
    Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 59 to 65 not moved.]
    Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 66:
    Page 7, line 25, at end insert"; and
    (c) facilitating overall transport policy objectives set out in relevant local transport plans, and in London the Mayor's transport strategy and local implementation plans and regional transport strategies"
    The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 66, 71 and 80 would put the network management duty into the wider context of local transport plans. As the Committee has discussed, the expeditious movement of traffic has always been a duty of traffic authorities. The debate surrounding integrated transport policy in recent decades has concerned how to balance that duty with other transport and community objectives. We believe that either this clause is a superfluous and unnecessary repetition of existing legislation, giving directions which could equally well be set out in local transport plan guidance, or that it gives undue emphasis to only one part of a transport authority's wider duty to publish and implement a comprehensive and integrated local transport plan.
    Network management is about more than just facilitating the expeditious movement of traffic, and to specify a duty as this alone (but having regard to other duties), appears to be an over-emphasis. This amendment to acknowledge the existence of wider LTP objectives would ensure that excessive emphasis would not be given to traffic movement by either the local authority or any imposed traffic director.
    The House of Commons Transport Select Committee report on the Bill makes it clear that it feels that, as worded, the Bill gives the impression that the statutory duty to secure the expeditious flow of traffic should take precedence over wider integrated transport and environment policies. I refer to paragraphs 9 and 10 of that report.
    I turn to Amendment No. 71. The arrangements appear to be specified in the relevant clause only as actions to identify and respond to disruptions to traffic rather than to put network management in the wider transport and other council policy contexts. Again, as with the previous amendment, network management is an existing part of these wider duties. If the appointment of a network manager is to be necessary, the clause could still require an appointment but with the individual's

    GC 47
    duties set clearly in the wider policy context. That should ensure that the position is not possibly interpreted locally or by outside interests as having overarching powers over other aspects of local transport policy.
    I hope that that slightly convoluted explanation of the amendments illustrates the thrust behind our concerns on Clause 16 and the network management duty. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for tabling this amendment as it gives me an opportunity to ask the Minister what on earth Clause 16 actually means. It begins by stating:
    "It is the duty of a local traffic authority to manage their road network".
    Indeed, it always has been the duty of local authorities to manage their road networks. It has certainly been the case over the past 15 or so years, certainly since I have been involved in local government, that, increasingly, management of the highway network has changed in response to both community and government aspirations regarding other policy objectives, such as the reduction of noise, improving safety, improving air quality, providing bus and cycle lanes, and so on. Those policies and certain planning policies have a profound effect upon the network and the way in which local authorities manage it. Local authorities want to be able to make those choices in a way that reflects the aspirations of local communities.
    Clause 16 begins by asking local authorities to do something that they already do. Then it adds the caveat that local authorities must do that,
    "so far as may be reasonably practicable having regard to their other obligations",
    which is what they are trying to do at the moment. The clause then states that local authorities must consider how they can make,
    "more efficient use of their road network",
    and seek the avoidance and elimination of congestion. Either the entire clause is simply a "motherhood and apple pie" provision and is included merely so that the Government can tell the road lobby that they have done something, or it will result in guidance being issued to local authorities obliging them to give greater precedence to the narrow aspects of traffic management than to other matters, such as safety, air quality or noise.
    From the point of view of local authorities it is very difficult to see what Clause 16 seeks to achieve. I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter and seek clarification from the Minister with regard to the Government's intentions in this regard.
    Lord Marsh: I should like to follow that point. This part of the Bill is crucial for the entire Bill, if that is not considered to be the case, everyone is wasting an awful lot of time here. While it quite properly lays out local authorities' responsibilities and so on, my understanding and hope is that it also recognises that, particularly in London, there is a crucial need for a much more
    GC 48
    co-ordinated approach to the entire question of not transportation—I must stop using these Americanisms— but of transport in London.
    I consider networking in terms of the networking of the entire system. Those of us who have seen the control centre realise that modern science has produced the means of managing the entire system in one go. That is happening. The problem is that the very best local authorities have very good approaches and programmes for within their local authority areas but, 50 yards away, that conflicts with the next local authority that has a different approach to the matter.
    I may be wrong but I feel strongly that this is the most important part of the Bill. It concerns an urgent and necessary matter but it requires us to get away from the concept of looking at this point and that point. We need a co-ordinating system for the network in London and Greater London.
    Lord Lucas: I entirely agree with what the previous two speakers have said. The LGA has produced a briefing that clearly shares the concern about what the clause means and whether it gives primacy, rather than parity, to certain duties.
    The draft network management duty, which the Government have circulated, is very emollient about these matters. It states that,
    "the duty is placed alongside all the other things that an authority has to consider'',
    and that it is to be viewed as part of the wider road network and should be integrated with the ditties of neighbouring authorities. However, I find it very hard to read that into the wording of the Bill. Clause 16 includes the words,
    "so far as may be reasonably practicable".
    If I were to place a duty on the Minister to turn up for lunch tomorrow with me,
    "so far as may be reasonably practicable",
    I would expect him to shift most other things except possibly the death of his mother-in-law into second place. I would expect him to give real priority to turning up. I think that is the ordinary English usage of the phrase.
    However, if I wanted to express what the Government seem to think this clause means, I would say,
    "as far as may be reasonable",
    and make it a much gentler duty to achieve these things. Many things need to be set alongside the duty that we are discussing. In the ordinary English reading of the phrase, anyone would expect to give the duty priority, and the first thing they would have to do would be to dig up all the speed humps.
    Earl Russell: Do not the words, "as far as is reasonably practicable", include traffic conditions? I remember one occasion when Barbara Castle as Minister of Transport was due to speak at an election

    GC 49
    meeting. She failed to arrive because it took her three hours to travel the length of Park Lane. She had attended as far as was reasonably practicable.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I am not so sure that some of us, even in our present state, could not manage to walk the length of Park Lane in less than three hours. Therefore, there was an alternative strategy on that occasion.
    I turn to the issues raised by the amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for giving the clause the importance that it merits. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, identified the present responsibilities of local authorities. We all know that the best authorities discharge those responsibilities so far as is practicable. However, the issue involves giving emphasis to the problem of congestion as it extends beyond local authority boundaries. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, emphasised, that is a particularly important matter in London but it is by no means confined to London. The problem of congestion is acute right across the country and certain factors cannot help but increase road usage. We aim to ensure that they do not increase road congestion as that already strains the patience of our fellow citizens to the utmost.
    Road usage is destined to increase according to all the analyses of economic factors such as car ownership, increased leisure time and people's desire to use the roads for a multiplicity of reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, identified so accurately, the clause emphasises the responsibilities that we are discussing. It is the centrepiece of the Bill. The clause encourages local authorities to devote more attention to traffic management. The objectives, policies and obligations mentioned in the clause are already wide enough to ensure that a local traffic authority is able to consider local, regional and national plans and strategies where they are relevant to the performance of its network management duties. I ask noble Lords opposite to withdraw their amendments as the clause already contains powers to consider other factors. At the same time it places the necessary emphasis—which is at the heart of the whole Bill—on dealing with congestion in an integrated and concerted way.
    The amendments seek to prevent the arrangements made for meeting the duty conflicting with other plans and strategies. However, it would indeed be surprising if there were not some divergence between this duty and other obligations. If that were the case, I do not see why the other obligations should take precedence over the duty—quite the opposite should be the case. What we are seeking—
    6.30 p.m.
    Baroness Scott of Needham Market: What would happen if the relevant obligations comprised other government obligations? Many towns across the country have islands of land that have been cut off by urban dual carriageways and therefore have not been developed. We have all seen those derelict islands of land. In seeking to meet the Government's objective of developing brownfield land, many local authorities
    GC 50
    have reduced the road space on either side of the islands of land, put in more crossings and made the land accessible so that it can be built on. That meets a government objective of using brownfield land but it also reduces road space and therefore possibly adds to congestion. Local authorities want to know which objective has primacy. How many directions can local authorities cope with at one time? That is at the heart of the concern about primacy.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I recognise that local authorities spend all their time trying to balance the conflicting demands of their electorates—those demands often conflict—with demands from government and other agencies. However, as I think the noble Baroness will recognise, the problem with the amendment that we are discussing is that it would appear to give precedence to other duties when the purpose of the Bill is to make the tackling of congestion a priority. Through the actions of traffic officers we seek to improve the way in which we tackle congestion on our roads. We ask local authorities to give primacy to that issue particularly as regards co-ordinating their actions with those of local authorities beyond their boundaries, as I emphasised a few moments ago.
    Viscount Astor: On this point of primacy I have a concern—and it may be an unnecessary concern. If this primacy is given, could a local authority that has either pedestrianised the streets, or wishes to pedestrianise part of the town, be prevented from doing so because we have a primacy as regards the road network managing of traffic?
    We all know of towns in which high streets have been pedestrianised where one could argue that that has disrupted the flow of traffic in the surrounding area. Would those circumstances make it difficult—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, nodding her head—for a local authority to introduce a pedestrian area, or would they affect the rules that apply to some streets that are pedestrianised, even though they are not pedestrianised all the time—they are sometimes pedestrianised only at specific hours of the day? I am concerned about that overarching primacy as well as the whole of Clause 16.
    Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may chime in on the same issue. The noble Lord says that there should be an elevated level of priority for these duties, but paragraph 13 of the draft Network Management Duty states that,
    "the duty is placed alongside all the other things that an authority has to consider, and it does not take precedence. So, for example, securing the expeditious movement of vehicles should not be at the expense of an authority's road safety objectives".
    Either I am misunderstanding this, or I misunderstand the noble Lord. The two do not sit together.
    Lord Berkeley: Before my noble friend responds, I have been interested that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, have been talking about the problems of primacy in keeping the traffic moving; and, therefore, perhaps local authorities cannot pedestrianise a street or a town centre. I would suggest that they fall into the trap of assuming that

    GC 51
    traffic merely equals cars, because pedestrians will find it much better in a town centre. I do not know how the Government intend to measure that. If we are talking about traffic including cyclists and pedestrians, there must be some means to balance the needs of pedestrians when they are crossing dual carriageway roads, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said. That has to be balanced with this primacy for keeping all traffic moving, including pedestrians.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to my noble friend. It was an entirely appropriate rejoinder to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. Local authorities will need to balance their responsibilities. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, they do that all the time. We recognise that there are conflicting obligations upon authorities. There are always such issues to be confronted.
    The Bill seeks to give effect to a new structure regarding our general position to deal with issues of traffic congestion. We merely seek to identify for local authorities the necessity for effective management of their road networks in the decisions they take, with the issue of congestion being an important issue to consider.
    Of course if the choice is between pedestrianisation for the benefit of the town and closing a road, a local authority may well believe that it would better serve the needs of its electorate by pedestrianisation. Who would gainsay such an initiative? At other times it may be that other priorities with regard to development take priority. Surely, it is right that through this legislation we should expect local authorities to address themselves to the issue of congestion. In doing that they should recognise that there is a great deal to be achieved by closer relationships with neighbouring authorities. That is particularly true in our great conurbations, especially with regard to London boroughs and London, but it is true across the country. I do not seek to suggest that what we have sought to do is to elevate the question of road congestion as the top priority for local authorities to address. That would be a ridiculous concept and nor would local authorities for one moment countenance such a proposition. However, they will understand that it is right that the Government should put in place measures that tackle the ever-growing problem of traffic flows and the barriers to traffic flows for the convenience of their electorate. It is important that in doing that we have a strategy and provision for emphasising the significance of the position. The amendments would remove the ability of the national authority to take the necessary steps to achieve the network strategy and management duty for which they are responsible.
    I recognise that we shall have considerable debates about the role of local authorities in respect of traffic management through many stages of the Bill. But this is the broad clause that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, emphasised is absolutely critical to the Bill. For that reason I resist the amendment.
    Lord Marsh: The problem with the Bill is that, in common with me, few people in the nation have taken on board the powers of this part of the Bill—Clauses 18, 19, 20 and particularly Clause 21 on the intervention orders which states:
    "If the appropriate national authority is satisfied that a local traffic authority are failing properly to perform any duty under sections 16 and 17 it may, by order made by statutory instrument (an 'intervention order'), make provision for or in connection with the appointment of a traffic director".
    If it works and if the Government are serious about it, this is a body that will have power to enforce a proper network management process. In an area like London, that is long overdue and if it works it will be a godsend to everyone.
    Lord Lucas: Am I right to conclude from what the noble Lord has said that this draft network management duty is what I should take as my Bible in understanding what the Bill is meant to achieve? Therefore, the words,
    "so far as may be reasonably practicable",
    should not be in the Bill because they impose a primacy on the duty and that, in accordance with paragraph 14 of the draft network management duty, we should seek to impose some kind of' a duty on authorities to communicate with, or to have regard to, the needs of their neighbours. Paragraph 14 appears to be entirely without support in the Bill. There is no duty in the Bill that a local highway authority should conduct itself so as not to cause congestion in neighbouring areas. It is expressed as a pious hope—one with which I agree— in the draft management duty. If the draft management duty is where we should be, we need to make some amendments to the Bill. Does the noble Lord agree with that?
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I do not think that I can agree until I see the colour of' the amendments of the noble Lord. I make the obvious point: road users do not identify boundaries between local authorities; they travel on roads and the roads cross authorities. I return to the point that I am trying to express as forcefully as possible and which has been accurately expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh: we need co-ordinated strategies between authorities. The purpose of the Bill is to emphasise that authorities need to manage their roads and their traffic cognizant of that requirement.
    I recognise that local authorities have competing obligations—that is in the nature of their work. What is quite clear is that this legislation will emphasise a greater role for the local authorities to address themselves to traffic management. Should they fail lamentably, there is provision for action to be taken. because action needs to be taken where we are not able to tackle congestion satisfactorily.
    6.45 p.m.
    Viscount Astor: It has been an interesting debate. The reason why Clause 15 is so important, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, alluded to, is because it sets up the provision of' a very wide-ranging power in Clauses 20 and 21. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that it

    GC 53
    includes pedestrians. Traffic can be backed up for half a mile, but you have to have an awful lot of pedestrians before they are backed up for half a mile. Pedestrians are occasionally impeded because the synchromesh on crossings is wrong and they might have to wait a minute, but you do not get lines of pedestrians.
    This clause changes the emphasis for local authorities. The Minister admitted that expeditious traffic movement has always been the duty of local authorities, but they have always balanced that with other community objectives. I believe that the clause gives a certain primacy to traffic movement—it changes the balance. The Committee needs to be aware of that. It might be argued that that is a good thing—the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, certainly seems to favour that argument. But we need to be aware of how important this clause is.
    The Minister said that my amendments are unnecessary. The more he says that, the more I wonder how necessary the clause is. The clause is necessary if we are seeking to change the emphasis and give a much stronger duty to local authorities to ensure a flow of traffic over the other concerns of the community. That is what it does, and we need to be aware of it. If we are not—and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, recognised this—we will need to consider it, particularly when we reach later clauses. I suspect that when we look at the powers that the later clauses will provide, we might look at Clause 16 again on Report to find out whether the Government have it exactly right. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 67:
    Page 7, line 25, at end insert—

    "(c) ensuring that the authority's road network is maintained in a condition fit for its purpose; and

    (d) ensuring that any defects are remedied as soon as may be reasonably practicable"

    The noble Lord said: The amendment probes the Government on the precise nature of the network management duty: what it entails, how the responsibilities are prioritised and who can assess compliance. As it stands, the network management duty seems to include most responsibilities placed on highway, street and traffic authorities. To raise the standard of network management across all local authorities, the Secretary of State will be able to issue statutory guidance. I believe that this is mentioned in the regulatory impact assessment.
    There are some serious questions about how local authorities should be assessed to be in compliance with their network management duty. If noble Lords are convinced of the need to establish a network management duty in addition to existing powers, the Committee needs to ascertain what difference this clause will make on the ground in local authorities which are visibly failing in their duties to highway maintenance.
    Reports and briefings by the AA and RAC have shown us that many local authority highway departments are facing serious problems and are not clearing backlogs of essential maintenance. Insufficient attention to highway investment leads to danger for all road users: two-wheelers, be they manual or motor-powered, pedestrians and car drivers. We have discussed this matter in previous amendments. These dangers can be fundamental, such as lacking properly painted, highly visible white lines and fully maintained traffic lights or ensuring that overhanging shrubbery is cut back.
    Some councils are clearly already failing to perform existing duties. However, the Minister in another place has quite rightly stated that central government intervention would be appropriate only in the most extreme of extreme cases. It is therefore necessary to ask what tangible benefits will be accrued from placing a network management duty on local authorities which are already failing on maintenance. What can the clause do to raise the standard of local network management while keeping local democracy and accountability intact?
    Given that the draft guidance in reference to Part 2 has been published only very recently, can we be assured that local authorities and local councillors will be able to settle on their own priorities for highway maintenance without imposition from the Government? Indeed, we need to know how compliance with the network management duty is to be assessed. Clause 16(2), at line 27, refers to local traffic authorities taking,
    "any action which they consider",
    will lead to the objective of the expeditious movement of traffic. As the clause stands, therefore, it appears as though the local authority itself will be the subjective arbiter of what is reasonable.
    In order to ensure that the network management duty central to Part 2 will indeed make a positive contribution without central government intervention, it is necessary to resolve all these issues. I beg to move.
    Lord Lucas: I have an amendment in this group as well. This is starting a discussion which will continue with a number of my later amendments—the relationship between traffic and the other users of the road space, principally the neighbouring businesses and householders. If I want to make changes to a property that borders a highway, I may well need to park a crane and take up part of the highway for a while. If I want to be connected to some new service, such as broadband or cable, I may need, particularly if I am a large commercial concern, to cause considerable disruption to the highway. How are these highway authorities to balance the conflicting demands on them?
    As the Bill stands—this comes back to what I was saying on the last grouping—I do not see what guidance the Government are intending to give local authorities on how to balance these duties. Are they to say, "No, Lord Lucas can wait six months for his broadband because we have a nice, pretty, new street and we are not going to have anyone digging holes in it"? Or will they say that there has to be a reasonable balance between the proper provision of services to people's neighbouring highways and keeping traffic

    GC 55
    flowing and the highways pretty? I do not see how that balance is expressed in the Bill. The amendment is merely an attempt to draw that out from the Minister.
    The Earl of Erroll: The amendment is highly relevant. Something which I have been lobbied about quite a lot is the problem of connecting people to broadband. People think of the road network in terms of carrying the physical communications traffic. It also carries the electronic traffic under the roads, in conduits. That electronic information—IT traffic—is essential to the well-being and the future of the country and small businesses. If it is not taken into consideration and people cannot get fast, expeditious and timely connections on to the electronic traffic highways—the backbone of the Internet or whatever it might be that they need to communicate with—then businesses can suffer. If you cannot get repairs done or new connections made, it will make life very difficult. Therefore, it has to be taken into account at an early stage when people are planning these things.
    We have had a lot of discussion about "practicable". I feel that "so far as is consonant with" is a rather good alternative expression.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. However, I remind the Committee that the duty in Clause 16 is focused on managing the road network and the traffic using it. There is already a separate duty on local authorities to maintain their roads. As they would be the first to point out, this depends upon the resources they have to fulfil this obligation. The Government have greatly increased funding to local authorities for maintenance in our recent decisions.
    It goes without saying that maintenance is of importance to the road network, but it is not the basis and the objective of the Bill. The duty we are talking about here is managing the network effectively. The amendment would be unlikely to change any position with regard to the obligations of the local authority to maintain its highways which are the subject of other provisions.
    I regard Amendment No. 67 as well meaning; it is concerned with our roads being in good condition. We all recognise that inadequate maintenance causes delays and difficulties. But it is not appropriate to a section of the Bill which is concerned with the broader strategic aspect.
    The purpose of the network management duty is to encourage local authorities to weigh up competing priorities and co-ordinate their works to minimise disruption. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, have said. Of course there are very good reasons why the roadway needs to be interfered with for the provision of services. That is the nature of the problem that we all recognise.
    No one wilfully digs up a road. I know that stories are legion in which people maintain that something has been extracted from the Louis Blanc field of socialism, 1848, whereby men dig up roads for the sole purpose and enjoyment of digging up the road, thereby
    GC 56
    apparently accounting for an increase in national productivity. However, no one seriously believes that our problem revolves around the issue that people arbitrarily and meaninglessly dig up roads. They all have a good reason for digging them up. The problem is that each and every one of them does it severally in an unco-ordinated way, and that leads to under-use of the network simply because our roads are constantly disrupted by these factors.
    In seeking to defend the Bill, I am not discounting the very important considerations about the provision of services which would require the highway to be interfered with. The Bill is seeking to achieve some degree of priority by the local authority, so that that activity is co-ordinated and we minimise the loss of highway usage by such means.
    Of course highway maintenance is bound to form an important part of the duty. I share the desire for authorities to take care of the infrastructure so that not only is it safe but its lifespan is maximised. Placing specific requirements on the face of the Bill is not the way to do it. Again, it leaves us with the problem of what we have left out if we draw up a list. Secondly, these considerations can be referred to in statutory guidance, which is a more appropriate way to discuss them than in primary legislation.
    Amendment No. 67A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also seeks to add an additional strand to the network management duty. Local traffic authorities will be required to minimise the disruption by other users as far as is consistent with safety and the efficient provision of services to the customers of commercial concerns.
    The duty already covers the causes of disruption that the amendment seeks to address. The consideration of wider issues such as safety are taken into account in the clause. Clause 16(1) is clear on that. It allows the local authority—and I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, as I make these remarks— to have regard to other obligations, policies and objectives when exercising the duty, but it clearly indicates to a local authority that we need some priority in this area. We need a recognition by local authorities that congestion is an important issue that can be tackled more intelligently within the framework of the provisions of the Bill.
    Expanding the network management duty in the way suggested by the noble Lord would dilute its focus. We have already had several other equally valid representations, which I am sure the noble Lord would recognise, on why they should be identified as considerations to be taken into account. If we sought to do that we should be faced with an inexhaustible list. In doing so, we would still be open to the charge that we had left out crucial areas. Statutory guidance, which is given on the basis of this measure, will be the basis on which these kinds of issues should be sorted out. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will recognise that they can safely withdraw their amendments.
    7 p.m.
    Lord Lucas: Yes, of course. My amendment was merely a probing amendment. I am delighted to have heard a statement of the Government's position. We shall come on to the substantive questions later in the Bill. The Minister again reiterated the phrase "some measure of priority" being given to the network management duty. That is what is in the Bill, it is not what is in the draft network management duty. Perhaps the noble Lord could write to me. I must ask him to try and reconcile the words in the draft network management duty with the words in the Bill. They just do not hang together. I will not try to persuade him from one course to another, I would just like to make sure that the Bill does what he wants it to do. At the moment the two do not work together. I would love to have a letter explaining how they are seen to work together.
    Lord Davies of Oldham: I will certainly address my mind to the point the noble Lord so reasonably makes. We have a long way to go with regard to this section
    GC 58
    of the Bill. It may be that we have a framework within which we can satisfactorily tease out these issues as we discuss the Bill. If not, I shall certainly take steps to write on the matter to the noble Lord and to all Members of the Committee.
    Lord Rotherwick: I thank the Minister for giving considerable clarity on the issue. Of course we shall go away and look at it carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 67A not moved.]
    Clause 16 agreed to.
    Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Tuesday at 3.30.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday at 3.30 p.m.
    The Committee adjourned at live minutes after seven o'clock.

  Southern Africa: Food Aid
  Southern Africa: Food Aid
  Afghanistan: DfID Assistance
  Afghanistan: DfID Assistance
  Southern Health and Social Services Board Pharmacy Practices Committee
  Southern Health and Social Services Board Pharmacy Practices Committee
  Irish Language Agency
  Irish Language Agency
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Remuneration
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Remuneration
  Northern Ireland: Targeting Social Need
  Northern Ireland: Targeting Social Need
  Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
  Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
  Defence Information Systems
  Defence Information Systems
  War Widows
  War Widows
  Disabled Children: Truancy
  Disabled Children: Truancy
  Pensions Bill
  Pensions Bill
  Azinphos-methyl: Inveresk Study
  Azinphos-methyl: Inveresk Study
  DrugScope
  DrugScope
  Orchards
  Orchards

  House of Lords Reform: Consultation Response Paper
  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
  I have today published the responses to the consultation paper Next steps for the House of Lords, and a government summary of these. Copies of the summary have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The individual responses are available on the Department for Constitutional Affairs' website, www.dca.gov.uk.

  Waterways Ireland: Annual Report and Accounts 2002
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Arts and Leisure in Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  Copies of the Waterways Ireland annual report and accounts for the year ended 31 December 2002 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  This document provides details of Waterways Ireland's activities, its performance, and its expenditure for that year.

  Food Safety Promotion Board: Annual Report 2002
  Baroness Amos
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  Copies of the Food Safety Promotion Board annual report 2002 incorporating financial statements to December 2001 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  This document provides details of the Food Safety Promotion Board's activities, and its performance to the end of 2002 and its expenditure to December 2001.

  Managed Migration
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  Today my right honourable friend the Home Secretary (David Blunkett) announced a series of measures to prevent abuse of immigration routes open to those wishing to come to the United Kingdom to study, work and marry here. These measures build on work that the IND has been taking forward over several months, together with other departments, and were indicated to the other place on WS 16
  30 March when he set out the next stage of policy in this area. They have been finalised by a series of managed migration taskforces, which we have set up to bring together policy, operational and intelligence personnel, enabling better co-ordination and focus. I am confident that the resulting package of measures achieves the necessary balance in these areas between facilitating the vast majority of genuine applicants from whom this country derives enormous benefits and protecting the system against actual and potential abuse. Other areas remain under review.

  Students

  The Government will establish a list of accredited private colleges. Discussions are already well advanced with the British Council and others on accreditation of English language schools. We will establish a scheme to broaden this to other colleges.

  By the end of the year we will be in a position of issuing visas only to students attending accredited colleges. In the mean time, where there are doubts about whether a college not on the list is bona fide, applications will be put on hold while the Home Office investigates them. An urgent programme of such investigations will begin next week.

  We will be consulting on introducing a requirement for all educational institutions to notify the Home Office where a foreign student does not enrol, or enrols and then disappears.

  We will also step up enforcement. This will include targeted multi-agency enforcement operations to disrupt proprietors of sham institutions and remove illegal staff and/or students. We will create more risk assessment units in embassies abroad to work alongside entry clearance staff and improve the flow of intelligence on fraud and abuse.

  We will consult on a requirement on foreign students to demonstrate self-sufficiency and ability to meet the financial requirements of the course before granting entry clearance.

  Marriage

  I am announcing today that we will legislate to restrict the capacity to authorise marriages involving foreign nationals from outside the EEA to a number of designated register offices. We are consulting with registrars about the most effective means of doing so. This will enable expertise to be built up on abuse and mean that we can focus our enforcement efforts. Clearly not all marriages involving foreign nationals present the same level of risk in terms of immigration abuse; for example, foreign nationals who have been resident here for many years. We will be working with registrars to refine our proposals to achieve the necessary balance between facilitating the vast majority of genuine applicants and protecting the system from abuse.

  We will also consult on making further changes to the marriage laws to reinforce these proposals, including to empower registrars to refuse to conduct a

  WS 17
  marriage that they suspect is being carried out for the purposes of illegal immigration, until it has been properly investigated by the immigration authorities.

  The Government will underpin these changes through a better co-ordinated intelligence-led focus on marriage abuse supported by an effective enforcement response where cases of abuse are detected.

  In the coming months there will be a major new enforcement effort targeting sham marriages and those who organise them, with the aim of arresting those engaged in such marriages and, where appropriate, prosecuting the organised criminality behind them.

  We are strengthening current arrangements for joint working between caseworkers and immigration officers to ensure a better focus on analysing intelligence, and more effective following up reports, for example from registrars about suspicious marriages.

  We will set up a joint working group between the Home Office and registrars to share intelligence and enable the enforcement effort and other countermeasures to be better targeted.

  Quota-Based Schemes

  The temporary quota-based schemes for the hospitality and food processing industries are due to be reviewed at the end of May in the light of EU enlargement. I have also ordered a review of the quota-based scheme for agricultural workers, for the same reason—around a third of these places were filled last year by nationals of the new EU accession states.

  I have decided that, in consultation with industry, we will at the end of May be setting reduced quotas for these schemes to reflect the fact that from 1 May accession nationals will be able to come and work through the planned workers registration scheme. We will be able to take account of early information from the registration scheme in revising the quotas.

  We will at the same time review control of both schemes.

  EGAA

  We will also be looking at the rules and practices for ECAA applications from the remaining countries that will be covered by that scheme after 1 May, taking account of the outcome of the investigation, which Ken Sutton is undertaking, of procedures for dealing with ECAA applications in Bulgaria and Romania. In the mean time, ECAA applications from Romania and Bulgaria continue to be suspended.

  European Community Finances
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
  WS 18
  The Statement on the 2004 Budget of the European Communities (EC Budget), entitled European Community Finances (Cm 6134), has today been laid before Parliament. This White Paper is the 24th in the series. As in the past, it covers annual budgetary matters and includes details of recent developments in European Community financial management arid in countering fraud against the EC Budget. It also describes the EC Budget for 2004 as adopted by the European Parliament, and details the United Kingdom's gross and net contributions to the EC Budget for calendar years 1998 to 2004 and financial years 1998–99 to 2005–06.

  Defence Science and Technology Laboratory: Key Targets 2004–05
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The following key targets have been agreed for the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) for the financial year 2004–05.

  1. At least maintain overall customer satisfaction and understanding of Dstl; by 31 March 2005 implement new methodology and set the baseline against which Dstl will monitor and improve its customer relationships in the future.

  2. Maintain and by the end of a three-year period show an increase in score for scientific and engineering capability in the technical benchmarking exercise from 67 per cent in 2002–03 to 72 per cent in 2005–06.

  3. By 31 July 2004 publish an update of Dstl's technical strategy that identifies the key technical issues and Dstl's role in addressing them, and by 31 March 2005 agree with MoD a future process that ensures that Dstl aligns itself with MoD's S&T outputs.

  4. Achieve planned progress to meet the completion date of 2008 for the transfer of Dstl on to three core sites at Porton Down, Portsdown West and Fort Halstead. Key milestones in 2004–05 are: issue the invitation to tender for the site rationalisation and facilities management contract (December 2004); pilot office layout options (March 2005); produce a plan for site remediation at Porton Down (October 2004).

  5. Pilot at least three areas of category management—procurement of manpower technical support, travel and laboratory equipment—to achieve cost and efficiency savings of £5.5 million by 31 March 2005.

  6. Maintain the average charge rate for manpower for 2004–05 and beyond below that for 2001–02 uplifted by GDP deflator.
  WS 19
  7. Achieve an ROCE of at least 3.5 per cent and an MoD dividend of £3 million1.

  1In addition to the 2004–05 ROCE target of at least 3.5 per cent, Dstl will aim to achieve a ROCE of at least 3.5 per cent averaged across the period 2004–05 to 2008–09, as agreed with HM Treasury.

  Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles
  Lord Bach
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
  WS 20
  I am pleased to be able to announce that we will be buying 64 Tomahawk land attack missiles from the United States under the terms of a foreign military sales case. These are conventionally armed land attack missiles. These new missiles will be to higher—block IV—specification than our existing block III missiles. As such, they will provide the ability to retarget or abort a mission in-flight and will also provide battle damage indication. They will be capable of being fired from our current Trafalgar class submarines as well as from our new Astute class submarines when they enter service.

  This decision shows our continued commitment to enabling precision attack at long range against selected targets.